【作者】 郑雅方；

【导师】 崔卓兰；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 行政裁量基准制度在我国是一个以规制行政裁量为目的的新兴制度,发展态势之猛烈已经得到学术界的高度重视。当然,新兴的制度的伊始,理论研究和实践操作中都会存在很多问题,这是无法规避的事实。然而,作为法律人,我们能做的,就只有让有生命力的制度,不要因为理论研究的滞后而导致实践中的困难重重。行政裁量基准在我国还是一个备受质疑的制度,笔者首先对裁量基准的概念,功能及正当性进行了剖析,指出了质疑根源在于控制技术,从而肯定了该制度本身的价值。之后笔者又从该制度的根源上去找寻,引入了法理学中法的渊源理论作为分析工具,结合实证材料和各国相关制度的比较和学科交叉的相关知识,分析了行政裁量基准的形式渊源,即行政规则,是行政裁量基准的表现形式。笔者指出了我国行政规则中的研究误区,并提出了行政规则的研究应当从功能的视角类型化,然后根据此种功能性类型化的研究方法,进一步对行政裁量基准做了类型化的分析。行政裁量基准的实质渊源是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,笔者指出,公共政策和行政惯例是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,并分析了公共政策和行政惯例之所以成为行政裁量基准实质渊源的原因、对行政裁量基准制定的正负面影响以及如何对公共政策和行政惯例的影响予以规范。笔者以行政过程论为依托,力图建立一个理想的行政裁量基准的生成模式。现有行政裁量基准生成模式可以分为两种,即自我生成模式和公众参与模式,两种模式的优点和弊端都很显著,故笔者主张建立一种结合两者优点的理想模式,从而拓宽了裁量基准的研究疆域。最后,笔者以行政裁量基准的后评估制度为例,对行政裁量基准的发展和完善提出了自己的构想。更多还原

【Abstract】 The dissertation elaborated the concept, origin and generation model, and the development and perfection of Administrative Discretion Standard Institution. By reviewing the previous research of Administrative Discretion and Administrative Discretion Standard, the author found out the formal source and material source of the Administrative Discretion Standard, and clarified the research topic of Administrative Discretion Standard, and the relative issues need to be further studied.The dissertation first analyzed the definition, nature of the Administrative Discretion and pointed out a new perspective for the study of Administrative Discretion, on the basis of the norms of previous research achievements. And then the author summarized the current research about this newly emerging institution, clarified the relationship among relative concept and centered on the dispute on the Administrative Discretion Standard institution. Furthermore, the author points out the research topic, methodology as well as some creative new ideas for the study of Administrative Discretion Standard.Except for introduction and conclusion, this dissertation is divided into five parts.Part One Introduction of Administrative Discretion StandardFirst, the author distinguished the definitions, rules and standards of Administrative Discretion Standard, and found that the Administrative Discretion Standard is the basic standard. Besides, the author analyzed the function of Administrative Discretion Standard, and demonstrated that its function is not to eliminate ossification, but to avoid ossification. Administrative Discretion Standard provides the grounds for the application of Administrative Discretion. To effectively avoid the“Different law enforcement”is the common goal for administrative institutions and private party. Meanwhile, Administrative Discretion Standard established the communicative platform for private party, judge and administrative agency, and provides the grounds for the surveillance and supervision of administrative discretion. Second, the dissertation analyzed the nature of Administrative Discretion Standard,that is, flexibility, and accountability、acceptability and procedure. The author believes that the significance of Administrative Discretion Standard is not to kill discretion, or to compress the discretion space by force, but to fill the blank of discretion, and guide the correct use of discretion. Discretion is a variable, thus Administrative Discretion Standard is a variable as well. Therefore it is inappropriate to expect a perfect Administrative Discretion Standard to regulate discretion. Administrative Discretion should be flexible and accessible to changes according to different situations, and that is the essence of Administrative Discretion Standard. The generating organs should have a obligation to the accountability to the Administrative Discretion Standard, which could both be active and passive. That is to say, the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, could be accounted by the generation organs actively, or be accounted by the supervision party and interest group. The acceptability of Administrative Discretion Standard, also called the enforceability and effectiveness, means whether the public are able to accept the Administrative Discretion Standard, whether it is enforceable and restrainable in practice. Three requirements should be met for the acceptability, the information publication, interest balance and public participation. Procedure which is another nature and key for Administrative Discretion Standard is the basis for the rationality and legality of Administrative Discretion Standard.Third, the author analyzed the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard based on the above argument, which is the result of self-control of agency’s power. Although the legalization to control the Administrative Discretion Standard to is ideal, it does not get the consensus across the world, instead, arouses the suspicion from the scholars around the globe. The author discussed the feasibility of Administrative Discretion Standard institution from the perspective of comparative law. There are relative regulations about the Administrative Discretion Standard in the administrative law of Germany, Japan and Korea. Japan and Korea also write it into their Administrative Procedure Act. Although there is no Administrative Discretion Standard in the U.S., there are administrative rules, which is equivalent to the Administrative Discretion Standard. The author further pointed out, the effectiveness of Administrative Discretion Standard technology, is pivotal to support the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard. All the explanation, mathematical formula could cause the ossification of Administrative Discretion Standard, which requires the improvement through practice.Part Two Formal Source of Administrative Discretion StandardThe author indicated that the administrative rules are the formal source of Administrative Discretion Standard, redefined the position of administrative rule in the administrative law system, and clarified the vague parlance in the regulation documents, in order to establish the necessary foundation for the dialogue with foreign administrative law.First, the author pointed out that there are four long-standing misconceptions for the studies about administrative rules of Administrative Discretion Standard in China. They are the vague conception of administrative rules, restraints in the category research due to the classified methodology of internal administrative rules and external administrative rules, and the misconception about legal source position under the influence of its illegal source position in Administrative Procedure Law and Unconditionally Obedience. The author believed that the reason for these misconceptions is that there is no category research of the administrative rules from the aspect of function.Second, the author made a category research on the Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of function. Based on the case studies, the author classified Administrative Discretion Standard, which is in the expression of administrative rules, into innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and instructive Administrative Discretion Standard. The conclusion is that Administrative Discretion Standard should uproot the innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, give priority to the explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and assisted with instructive Administrative Discretion Standard.Part Three Material Source of Administrative Discretion StandardThis chapter focused on the Material sources of Administrative Discretion Standard. The author sought the source of Administrative Discretion Standard in real life, enhanced the extent of rationality in Administrative Discretion Standard. In addition, to evaluate the Administrative Discretion Standard in respect of the administrative rules, is able to strengthen our understanding of its position in China’s administrative law system, and clarify its legal effectiveness to the administrative enforcement and judicial supervision. However, further observation indicated that, in order to grasp the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, we need to explore the knowledge sources of these rules and the reality impact.First, this chapter discussed public policy, a material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. The reason for public policy to develop into the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard is not only because of its content, body, but also due to its submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition. It is shown in the case study that, public policy has dual impact on the formation of Administrative Discretion Standard in both positive and negative sides. The exercise of public policy’s guidance to the Administrative Discretion Standard should be realized through the supervision of regulation document and setting up the legal observation system. By introducing the case of“detainment of smoker”, three reasons for public policy to be the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard are drawn: public policy propagandizes the administrative task in certain period, and pictures the social context made by Administrative Discretion Standard.Same agency and aim, which determines the basic principle that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard must follow the public policy; submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition determines that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard can not be separated from the consideration of public policy. Then the author analyzed the public policy’s dual impact to Administrative Discretion Standard. On the one hand, public policy could facilitate Administrative Discretion Standard meet the requirement of current society, fill the blank of legal Regulation of Administrative Discretion Standard, and put the self protection of Administrator. On the other hand, the public policy makes the legal regulations impractical, and impedes the formation of the legal consciousness of the whole society, cause the administrative autocracy. Therefore, we should adopt the pre-supervision to regulate the administrative rules, ensure the public policy meet the legitimate requirement at minimum level and promote the correct usage of explanation system in Administrative Discretion Standard.Second, this chapter also discussed the administrative practice, the second material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. Administrative practice plays the guiding role in Administrative Discretion Standard, and is the important material source of it. Through the observation to the exercise of administrative practice, we found that it also boasts dual impact in both positive and negative. On one hand, the administrative practice fills the blank of written law and guarantees the interests of private party. On the other hand, it could lead to the slack of the Administrative Discretion Standard enforcement, and further leads to the administrative autocracy. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice’s guidance on Administrative Discretion Standard. Through the analysis of Entrapment Case in Shanghai, the author concluded that there are three reasons why administrative convention should become Administrative Discretion Standard: the administrative practice convention is the summary of practical exercise, which reflects the management from basic level; the administrative practice is the carrier of administrative self restraint principle, which reflects the principle of equality in enforcement; the administrative practice represents the professional technical judgment, which reflects the continuity of administrative activity. Then the author summarized the impact on both sides. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice on Administrative Discretion Standard, in order to guarantee the legitimacy of administrative practice and its correspondence to reality.Part Four Generation Modes of Administrative Discretion StandardThis chapter established a generation mode depending on the administrative process for the Administrative Discretion Standard, based on the analysis of current generation mode of Administrative Discretion Standard. Firstly the author analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of two generation modes of Administrative Discretion Standard: Self-generation Mode and Public Participation Generation Mode. These two generation modes are not scientific generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard. The ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard should be a Self-Generation Mode built on the administrative process, taking the Public Participation as prerequisite. Then the author analyzed the ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process, such as, information, technology, expert and public participation, balance mechanism to avoid the ossification etc. Taking these factors into consideration, the author finally proposed an ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process.Part Five Establishing Scientific Evaluation System to Improve Administrative Dicretion StandardThe autor pointed out that Administrative Discretion Standard, as a new system need to be further developed. Considering the low quality of Administrative Discretion Standard, the evaluation system, as a measure to improve the Administrative Discretion Standard, is particularly important. Motivation, method and result of evaluation of Administrative Discretion Standard are illustrated in this part. Although there are no empirical materials to serve for the evidence in this research, the conclusion of this thesis undoubtedly boasts forward-looking significance for the improvement of the quality of Administrative Discretion Standard.In the conclusion part, the author concuded the entire general research of this thesis, and drawed a blue picture for future research of Administrative Discretion Standard.更多还原