本文選題：行政裁判所 + 行政糾紛��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 行政裁判所制度作為英國(guó)行政法中所特有的制度,在其行政法制進(jìn)程中起到了獨(dú)特的作用。其每年裁判的行政案件數(shù)量也自建立之時(shí)起逐年遞增,大大緩解了普通法院裁判的壓力,同時(shí)也促進(jìn)了行政糾紛的及時(shí)解決。正因?yàn)榇?英國(guó)行政裁判所制度為世界其他國(guó)家所借鑒和采納,作為一項(xiàng)獨(dú)具特色的制度,受到了包括加拿大、澳大利亞、美國(guó)、新西蘭等國(guó)家的重視和借鑒,并根據(jù)其各自的本國(guó)行政司法體系之特點(diǎn)作出了相應(yīng)的變革,建立了各自的行政裁判所制度,并產(chǎn)生了很好的效果。正是在這樣的大背景之下,本文通過(guò)對(duì)大量英國(guó)行政法學(xué)者研究行政裁判所制度專(zhuān)著和論文的翻譯和整合分析的基礎(chǔ)上來(lái)展開(kāi)文章的論述,力求使得我國(guó)行政法制建設(shè)也能夠吸取到英國(guó)行政裁判所制度中的精華。 在具體結(jié)構(gòu)上,本文分為五個(gè)部分來(lái)展開(kāi)論述,第一部分從鑒別和認(rèn)定英國(guó)行政裁判所的性質(zhì)和地位入手,針對(duì)英國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)也長(zhǎng)期存在的將行政裁判所的性質(zhì)到底定論為行政性質(zhì)還是司法性質(zhì),以及行政裁判所到底是屬于行政機(jī)關(guān)還是屬于法院的爭(zhēng)論,論文從原因到現(xiàn)實(shí)結(jié)論都給予了闡述；第二部分對(duì)體系龐雜的英國(guó)裁判所體系進(jìn)行了分類(lèi)和具體介紹,列舉了每一類(lèi)型裁判所中的典型例子,并從組成人員、裁判程序、代理問(wèn)題等各個(gè)方面對(duì)典型裁判所進(jìn)行了有詳有略的介紹,以期望能更加直觀(guān)生動(dòng)的展示英國(guó)行政裁判所體系的原貌；第三部分主要對(duì)行政裁判所的運(yùn)行程序進(jìn)行了詳盡的論述,正是因?yàn)橛?guó)行政裁判所長(zhǎng)期存在著體系龐雜,秩序混亂的局面,所以其不統(tǒng)一、不規(guī)范的裁判程序長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)都是英國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)審查裁判所制度時(shí)十分重視的問(wèn)題,本部分從代理形式、告知上訴權(quán)、說(shuō)明裁決理由等方面對(duì)裁判所裁決程序的要求進(jìn)行了較為全面的論述；第四部分作為對(duì)前面所述的各方面問(wèn)題的一個(gè)總結(jié)與分析,通過(guò)對(duì)英國(guó)歷史上兩次對(duì)裁判所制度的重大審查(弗蘭克斯委員會(huì)審查和里蓋特委員會(huì)審查)的內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了具體論述,對(duì)兩次審查報(bào)告進(jìn)行了分析,并對(duì)英國(guó)行政裁判所制度的完善給出了具體建議,在此部分的最后也根據(jù)這些建議指出了英國(guó)行政裁判所最近幾年的最新發(fā)展動(dòng)向；第五部分聯(lián)系中國(guó)行政法制的實(shí)際情況,針對(duì)論文前面幾部分所提出的重要問(wèn)題,有針對(duì)性的借鑒英國(guó)行政裁判所制度,對(duì)完善我國(guó)行政法制尤其是我國(guó)行政法律制度中與裁判所在職能上相類(lèi)似的制度的建設(shè)給出了指導(dǎo)性的建議。
[Abstract]:As a special system in British administrative law, the system of administrative adjudication has played a unique role in the process of administrative legal system. The number of administrative cases adjudicated every year has been increasing year by year since its establishment, which greatly alleviates the pressure on the ordinary courts to adjudicate, and also promotes the timely resolution of administrative disputes. Because of this, the British administrative adjudication system has been used for reference and adopted by other countries in the world. As a unique system, it has received the attention and reference of Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand and other countries. According to the characteristics of their respective administrative judicial system, the corresponding changes have been made, and their administrative adjudicatory system has been established, and has produced very good results. It is against this background that this paper discusses the translation and integration of a large number of British administrative law scholars on the basis of the translation and integration of the monographs and papers of the administrative adjudication institution. Make every effort to make our country administrative legal system construction also can absorb the essence of the British administrative adjudication system. In the specific structure, this paper is divided into five parts to discuss, the first part from the identification and determination of the nature and status of the British administrative adjudication, In view of the long-standing dispute in the United Kingdom that the nature of the administrative tribunal is administrative or judicial, and whether the administrative tribunal belongs to the administrative organ or the court, In the second part, the author classifies and introduces the complicated system of the English referees, enumerates the typical examples of each type of referees, and analyzes the composition of the judges and the procedure of the judges. The agency issues and other aspects of the typical referees were introduced in detail in order to hope to more intuitive and vivid display of the original appearance of the British administrative referee system; The third part mainly discusses the operation procedure of the administrative adjudicators in detail. It is precisely because the British administrative adjudicators have long had a complicated and chaotic system, so they are not unified. Non-standard adjudication procedure has long been a very important issue in the review of the adjudicatory system in the United Kingdom. In this part, the right of appeal is informed from the form of agency. The requirements of the adjudication procedure are discussed comprehensively in the aspects of explaining the reasons for the adjudication. The fourth part is a summary and analysis of the problems mentioned above. The contents of the two major reviews of the judicial system in British history (the Franks Commission Review and the Rigate Committee Review) are discussed in detail, and the two reviews are analyzed. At the end of this part, the author points out the latest development trend of the British Administrative Court in recent years. The fifth part relates to the actual situation of China's administrative legal system. In view of the important questions raised in the first few parts of the thesis, the author draws lessons from the British administrative adjudication system. The paper gives some instructive suggestions on how to perfect our country's administrative legal system, especially the construction of the system which is similar to the administrative law system in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D956.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 鄭威;英國(guó)行政裁判所制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

2 鄧搴;英國(guó)行政裁判所研究[D];廣西民族大學(xué);2012年

3 馮冬淵;英國(guó)行政裁判所研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

4 韓思思;我國(guó)行政爭(zhēng)議解決機(jī)制研究[D];河北大學(xué);2009年

5 劉筱娟;英國(guó)裁判所制度剖析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

6 胡振標(biāo);論我國(guó)行政復(fù)議調(diào)解制度的發(fā)展與完善[D];汕頭大學(xué);2010年

7 鄭磊;行政司法功能研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2010年

8 逄博;論我國(guó)行政復(fù)議制度存在的主要問(wèn)題及解決建議[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

9 張準(zhǔn);論我國(guó)行政復(fù)議制度存在問(wèn)題的分析及完善[D];山東大學(xué);2010年

10 于雷;行政復(fù)議和行政信訪(fǎng)救濟(jì)的比較研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1781618