發(fā)布時間：2018-06-28 06:42

  本文選題：藥品監(jiān)管 + 行政處罰��； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 行政處罰權(quán)是行政機(jī)關(guān)所擁有的一項重要而古老的行政權(quán)力,在當(dāng)今社會已成為一種重要的行政執(zhí)法手段和懲處方法,廣泛地在行政機(jī)關(guān)管理社會的過程中使用著。中美兩國在文化背景、法治傳統(tǒng)、行政與司法體制及立法技術(shù)和行政行為實踐方式等方面存在著巨大的差異,這就導(dǎo)致兩國行政處罰的觀念、涵義、形式和程序等方面有著巨大的差異。 行政處罰在不同國家的稱謂都不太一樣,大陸法系國家一般稱之為“行政罰”,英美法系國家一般稱之為“行政制裁”,由于兩大法系之間的巨大差異,兩者只是一種相似的參照,而絕不是同一個概念。在傳統(tǒng)上,人們一般認(rèn)為,大陸法系國家的行政處罰多被稱作“行政罰”,是指對違反行政法上的義務(wù)而根據(jù)一般統(tǒng)治權(quán)給予的制裁。而在英美法系國家中,行政機(jī)關(guān)理論上沒有屬于行政主體之特權(quán)的處罰權(quán),他們“尚嚴(yán)格恪守著司法與行政的絕對界限,對違法者給以制裁之類的帶有裁判意味的事務(wù),統(tǒng)歸法院掌管,從而也就剝奪了行政主體對行政義務(wù)的違反者給予懲戒或制裁的權(quán)力”。當(dāng)然,在某些特殊領(lǐng)域,行政機(jī)關(guān)實際上也被賦予一定的處罰權(quán),但主要限于罰款權(quán)。 然而,自1887年美國設(shè)立第一個獨立的行政管理機(jī)構(gòu)(獨立管制機(jī)構(gòu))州際貿(mào)易委員會以來,這類獨立管制機(jī)構(gòu)被賦予極大的權(quán)力,融合了立法、行政、司法三種權(quán)威,其中也囊括了對行政相對人的處罰權(quán)。到20世紀(jì)初,這種機(jī)構(gòu)在美國已多達(dá)數(shù)十個,這其中就包括了美國食品藥品監(jiān)督局(FDA)。并且,這種處罰權(quán)再也不是傳統(tǒng)觀念中的少得可憐的零星罰款權(quán),而是變成了威力巨大的懲罰權(quán)。 目前,我國對美國行政處罰的研究還不太多,而美國藥品監(jiān)管領(lǐng)域的行政處罰研究則更是鳳毛麟角。本文擬以比較的方法對中美藥品監(jiān)管中的行政處罰制度進(jìn)行分析,對比了中國和美國食品藥品監(jiān)管體系中行政處罰的定義、法律淵源、處罰方式和程序等問題,希望能夠?qū)χ袊?dāng)前的食品藥品監(jiān)管體制具有一定的理論借鑒意義和實踐指導(dǎo)作用。 我國近期頻繁發(fā)生的的“三鹿奶粉”類公共食品質(zhì)量與安全事件是筆者對食品藥品監(jiān)管體系進(jìn)行思考的直接原因,如何借鑒域外成熟的制度建設(shè)經(jīng)驗,健全并完善我國的食品藥品監(jiān)管體制,進(jìn)一步推動我國藥品行政監(jiān)管的能力與水平已經(jīng)成為中國食品藥品監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)思考的最大命題。
[Abstract]:The power of administrative punishment is an important and ancient administrative power owned by administrative organs. It has become an important means of administrative law enforcement and punishment in today's society and is widely used in the process of administrative organs' management of society. There are great differences between China and the United States in cultural background, tradition of rule of law, administrative and judicial system, legislative technology and administrative behavior practice, which leads to the concept and meaning of administrative punishment between the two countries. There are great differences in form and procedure. The appellation of administrative punishment is not the same in different countries. Civil law countries generally call it "administrative punishment", and common law countries generally call it "administrative sanctions". Because of the great difference between the two legal systems, The two are only a similar reference, not the same concept. Traditionally, it is generally believed that the administrative punishment of civil law countries is called "administrative penalty", which refers to the sanctions according to the general ruling power for violating the obligations of administrative law. In the Anglo-American legal system countries, the administrative organs do not have the right of punishment which belongs to the privilege of the administrative subject in theory. They "strictly abide by the absolute boundaries between the administration of justice and the administration, and impose sanctions on the violators with the kind of adjudicative affairs." By placing it under the control of the courts, administrative subjects are deprived of the power to punish or sanction violators of administrative obligations. " Of course, in some special areas, administrative organs are actually given certain powers of punishment, but mainly limited to fines. However, since the establishment of the first independent administration in the United States in 1887, the Interstate Trade Commission (ICTC), such independent regulatory bodies have been given great powers to combine legislative, executive and judicial authority. It also includes the right of punishment to the administrative counterpart. By the early 20th century, there were dozens of such agencies in the United States, including the Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, this power of punishment is no longer the pitifully few traditional rights of fine, but a powerful power of punishment. At present, there is not much research on American administrative punishment in our country, but in the field of drug regulation in the United States, the research on administrative penalty is even rarer. This paper analyzes the administrative penalty system in Chinese and American drug supervision by means of comparative analysis, and compares the definition, legal origin, punishment method and procedure of administrative punishment between Chinese and American food and drug regulatory systems. It is hoped that it can be used for reference in theory and practice in China's current food and drug supervision system. The recent frequent public food quality and safety incidents of Sanlu Milk Powder are the direct reasons for the author to think about the food and drug supervision system, and how to learn from the experience of overseas mature system construction. Perfecting and perfecting the food and drug regulatory system in China and further promoting the ability and level of drug administration supervision in China has become the biggest proposition that the food and drug regulatory agencies in China think about.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D922.16;D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 張千帆;;世界行政法體系的形成與發(fā)展[J];比較法研究;2006年06期

2 蔣棟楠;王學(xué)芳;;美國行政程序法中的聽證制度[J];研究生法學(xué);1995年02期

3 張千帆;論行政中立——從美國行政法看行政公正的制度保障[J];法商研究;2005年06期

4 朱維究;;外國行政司法制度介紹(一)——美國行政法官制度[J];法學(xué)雜志;1991年05期

5 張小雁;;西方國家行政處罰程序比較[J];廣州市公安管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年01期

6 袁建剛;陳勝;;英國判例法文化探析[J];燕山大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2007年S1期

7 余凌云;行政強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行理論的再思考[J];中國人民大學(xué)學(xué)報;1998年04期

，

本文編號：2077108