本文選題：美國 + 司法審查　； 參考：《鄭州大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 盡管每個國家的具體表述存在差異,但是受案范圍作為行政訴訟制度中一個尤其重要的內容,決定著一個國家的司法機關能夠審查的行政行為的范圍,體現(xiàn)了一國司法機關對行政權的監(jiān)督力度；同時還反映了一國司法對公民個人權利的保障力度；甚至有的國家認為行政訴訟的受案范圍展示了一國司法、行政、立法機關對行政機關監(jiān)督層面上所體現(xiàn)的分工,可見,受案范圍是行政訴訟制度一項很重要的內容,影響著行政訴訟的其他制度和內容。 研究我國行政訴訟受案范圍的學術成果并不鮮見,但是運用比較的方法,放眼海外探尋其他國家,尤其是探尋司法理論比較發(fā)達的美國其行政行為的司法審查狀況,而看出有著不同歷史背景和文化傳統(tǒng)的兩國有關行政訴訟受案范圍的有關內容存在何種意義上的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別,并且從判例法國家的一些具有代表性的司法判例著手來考究兩國行政行為司法審查的異同,在國內目前還很少有學者涉獵這個問題。筆者就斗膽獻丑,將自己的一點拙見惶恐披露,還望各位專家同仁批評指正。 本文共分為五個部分： 第一部分是緒論部分,該部分筆者提出了本文的只要研究問題、已有的研究成果,本文的創(chuàng)新之處和存在的諸多不多。 第二部分就與本文有關的一些概念如司法審查、行政行為、司法審查的范圍與強度等進行界定與區(qū)分。這是我們解決接下來的一些具體問題的前提,只有將這些基本概念分析清楚,以后的理論分析和實踐考察才能站得住腳。 第三部分是對美國行政行為司法審查情況的介紹。從美國由主權豁免向可以審查的假定原則過渡,美國開始了對行政行為的司法審查,之后經(jīng)歷了20世紀羅斯福新政、聯(lián)邦程序法的頒布、20世紀60、70年代、60年代至1984年、1984年至今等階段,并且每個階段美國行政行為司法審查又呈現(xiàn)了自身的特征。 第四部分是探尋美國行政行為司法審查之所以呈現(xiàn)這種變遷情況的原因,其中包括司法理念層面的原因和法官在具體案件的審理過程中對公共利益和個人利益的選擇問題,法官以不同的視角看待一行為能否被訴的問題可能會得出不同的結論。 第五部分主要考察美國行政行為的司法審查變遷情況對我們這樣一個制定法的國家有什么借鑒意義。雖然我們不賦予司法判例約束力,但是在堅持制定法傳統(tǒng)的框架下,我們仍然可以充分發(fā)揮法官司法者的作用,利用其專業(yè)知識來擴大行政訴訟的受案范圍,從而來擴大對行政權的監(jiān)督、保障公民的合法權益。
[Abstract]:Although the specific statements of each country vary, the scope of cases, as a particularly important element of the administrative litigation system, determines the scope of the administrative acts that the judicial organs of a country can review,It reflects the degree of supervision of the executive power by the judicial organs of a country; at the same time, it also reflects the degree of protection of the individual rights of citizens by the administration of justice in a country. Some countries even think that the scope of accepting a case in an administrative proceeding shows the judicial and administrative aspects of a country.The division of labor embodied in the supervision of administrative organs by the legislature shows that the scope of accepting cases is a very important content of the administrative litigation system, which affects the other systems and contents of administrative litigation.It is not uncommon to study the scope of administrative litigation cases in China, but using comparative methods, looking overseas to explore other countries, especially to explore the judicial review of its administrative acts in the United States, where judicial theory is relatively developed.And we can see what kind of connections and differences exist in the relevant contents of the scope of administrative litigation cases between the two countries with different historical backgrounds and cultural traditions.And from some representative judicial precedents of the case law countries to explore the similarities and differences of judicial review of administrative acts between the two countries, at present there are few scholars dabbling in this issue.I have the courage to offer ugly, their own humble opinion panic disclosure, but also hope that the expert colleagues criticism and correction.This paper is divided into five parts:The first part is the introduction part. The author puts forward only the research problems, the existing research results, the innovation of this paper and the existence of a lot of little.The second part defines and distinguishes some concepts related to this article, such as judicial review, administrative act, scope and intensity of judicial review.This is the premise for us to solve the following specific problems. Only by analyzing these basic concepts clearly, can the theoretical analysis and practical investigation in the future be able to hold water.The third part is an introduction to the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States.From the United States from sovereign immunity to the principle of supposition that can be examined, the United States began the judicial review of administrative acts, and then went through the New deal of Roosevelt in the 20th century.The promulgation of the Federal procedural Law in the 1960s and 1970s-1984, 1984 and so on, and each stage of the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States has its own characteristics.The fourth part is to explore the reasons why the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States presents this kind of change, including the reasons of judicial concept and the choice of public and personal interests of judges in the process of hearing specific cases.Judges may come to different conclusions about whether an act can be prosecuted from different perspectives.The fifth part mainly examines the changes of judicial review of administrative acts in the United States.Although we do not give binding effect to judicial precedents, under the framework of upholding the tradition of statutory law, we can still give full play to the role of judges and judiciaries and use their expertise to expand the scope of cases in administrative proceedings.So as to expand the supervision of administrative power, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：DD912.1;D971.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前3條

1 董茂云,唐建強;論行政訴訟中的人權保障[J];復旦學報(社會科學版);2005年01期

2 陳云生;論司法謙抑及其在美國司法審查制度中的實踐[J];上海交通大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2005年05期

3 畢雁英,栗力;兩大法系司法審查制度之趨同發(fā)展及對我國行政訴訟發(fā)展的啟示[J];行政論壇;2003年01期

，

本文編號：1774100