本文選題：行政裁量 + 政策��； 參考：《浙江工商大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：行政裁量在行政法學(xué)理論和實踐中具有十分重要的地位。戴維斯教授曾在其《裁量正義》一書中說過：行政裁量是“行政過程的生命之源”。在理論上,近年來有大量學(xué)者對行政裁量進(jìn)行了大量深入的研究,對裁量的研究早已不僅僅限于概念之爭,而且深入到各個領(lǐng)域,并出現(xiàn)了眾多行政裁量理論的權(quán)威學(xué)者。就我國的行政實踐而言,行政機(jī)關(guān)制定的大量執(zhí)法政策是裁量權(quán)行使過程中最重要的規(guī)則性影響因素之一。行政法學(xué)的主要研究對象是法律規(guī)范,但對于行政過程中的其他規(guī)則要素也應(yīng)當(dāng)給予相當(dāng)?shù)年P(guān)注。 本文著重通過對政策與法的形式的分析,研究了行政法學(xué)上所說的政策是指什么。政策科學(xué)上所說的政策,包含了所有法律規(guī)范及國家機(jī)關(guān)制定的其他行為規(guī)則。法理學(xué)上將政策視作法的資源性要素,經(jīng)過法的進(jìn)路性要素而轉(zhuǎn)化為法。除此之外的政策,仍然僅僅是政策,政策不是法,同時,行政機(jī)關(guān)總有一個執(zhí)法政策。一項執(zhí)法政策的提出,意味著原來的執(zhí)法政策不能滿足于現(xiàn)狀。從這些意義上而言,政策是相對獨(dú)立于法之外的另一種規(guī)則要素存在,政策不僅是一個描述性概念,而且建構(gòu)行政機(jī)關(guān)的行動,具有工具理性價值。也是在這個意義上,政策不僅僅指一種指導(dǎo)思想,而且包括政策中的具體措施。在行政法上,具有行政立法權(quán)的行政機(jī)關(guān)對其自身制定的法律規(guī)范的解釋,具有與法律規(guī)范同等的效力,同屬于法律規(guī)范性文件,本文將其排除在政策范圍之外。具有行政立法權(quán)的行政機(jī)關(guān)所制定的除對其自身制定的法律規(guī)范的解釋以外的解釋性文件,以及沒有行政立法權(quán)的機(jī)關(guān)制定的對法律、法規(guī)和規(guī)章的解釋文件都屬于非法定解釋,其對行政機(jī)關(guān)的效力來自于行政組織的權(quán)威,而非來自該文件自身；但這種效力不當(dāng)然推及行政相對人及司法機(jī)關(guān),對司法機(jī)關(guān)沒有強(qiáng)制拘束力,因而不屬于屬法律規(guī)范性文件。因而本文將這些為執(zhí)行法律而制定的非法律規(guī)范屬性的其他規(guī)范性文件歸入政策范圍內(nèi)。當(dāng)然,除了其他規(guī)范性文件外,政策還包括行政機(jī)關(guān)以其他形式制定、發(fā)布的針對不特定公眾的文件 本文通過對學(xué)者們關(guān)于裁量概念論述的梳理,采納了統(tǒng)一裁量論的觀點,即對不確定法律概念的解釋也屬于行政裁量。基于依法行政原則的要求,行政機(jī)關(guān)不可能依政策行政。但是行政裁量為行政機(jī)關(guān)透過法律的屏障達(dá)成行政任務(wù)提供了通道。行政機(jī)關(guān)的政策,其重要作用有兩個方面：其一,解決政策問題,實現(xiàn)行政任務(wù)；其二,建構(gòu)和約束法律規(guī)范賦予的行政裁量權(quán)及其行使,在實踐中政策的作用可能會有不同的側(cè)重點。這兩個作用的發(fā)揮,都在某種程度上依賴于政策所具有的工具性、權(quán)威性、一致性與專業(yè)知識(經(jīng)驗)性,并通過政策目標(biāo)的宣示、解釋法律概念、規(guī)定法律效果而對行政裁量產(chǎn)生影響。 通過一個案例和基于該案例的假設(shè),分析了政策在影響行政裁量權(quán)的過程中,最有可能產(chǎn)生的兩個問題：裁量怠惰和政策規(guī)避。因為行政機(jī)關(guān)自上而下的組織體系,下級行政機(jī)關(guān)很有可能僵化的適用政策而忽視了裁量的應(yīng)有之義,缺乏對案件具體情況和行政相對人個體情形的考量,從而造成非正義,尤其當(dāng)政策本身就是一個僵化的政策時。但另一方面,如果行政機(jī)關(guān)在裁量權(quán)行使的過程中,沒有正當(dāng)理由的背離政策,從嚴(yán)作出裁量決定,則會違背平等對待原則,更加可能會違背合法預(yù)期保護(hù)原則損害相對人的利益。包括合法預(yù)期保護(hù)在內(nèi)的一般法律原則構(gòu)成行政權(quán)行使的內(nèi)在邊界,超出這一邊界會構(gòu)成一種權(quán)利濫用情形,在裁量領(lǐng)域,可以稱作裁量濫用。 在司法審判中,司法機(jī)關(guān)對行政裁量進(jìn)行的是有限審查,即審查是否存在瑕疵而違法。而對受政策影響的行政裁量之審查,其實質(zhì)在于審查政策是否提供了充分的、合理的正當(dāng)性理由。因此不可避免的要深入政策,考察政策的內(nèi)在構(gòu)造、內(nèi)容是否合法或者合理。我國最高人民法院在《關(guān)于審理行政案件適用法律規(guī)范問題的座談會紀(jì)要》明確了對抽象行政行為的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是合法性與合理性。但是本文在寫作過程中通過對司法判決文書的閱讀,發(fā)現(xiàn)在司法實踐中往往僅僅考察其合法性,而且對合法性的適用尺度僅僅是不得與法律規(guī)范的明確規(guī)定相抵觸。司法實踐中對政策在內(nèi)的行政規(guī)范性文件的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)降低為合法性,其原因一方面可能在給予知識、能力及職權(quán)分工的司法尊重；另一方面也可能是因為法院在我國憲政實踐中的實際地位導(dǎo)致的,尤其在強(qiáng)調(diào)能動主義司法的背景下,法院更有可能將行政政策內(nèi)化為司法政策。
[Abstract]:Administrative discretion has a very important position in the theory and practice of administrative law. Professor Davies once said in his book of discretion: administrative discretion is the source of the life of administrative process. In theory, in theory, a large number of scholars have done a lot of in-depth research on administrative discretion in recent years, and the research on discretion has long been limited. In terms of the dispute of concept, and deep into various fields, there are many authoritative scholars of administrative discretion. As far as the administrative practice of our country is concerned, a large number of law enforcement policies formulated by the administrative organs are one of the most important and regular factors affecting the exercise of discretion. The main object of the study of administrative law is the legal norm, but it is for administration. Other elements of the process should also be given considerable attention.
This article, through the analysis of the form of policy and law, has studied what the policy of administrative law refers to. The policy in the science of policy includes all the legal norms and other rules of conduct formulated by the state organs. In addition, the policy is still only a policy, and the policy is not a law. At the same time, the administrative organs always have a law enforcement policy. A law enforcement policy suggests that the original law enforcement policy is not satisfied with the status quo. In these sense, the policy is a relatively independent rule outside the law, and the policy is not only a sketch. It is also in this sense that policy not only refers to a kind of guiding ideology, but also includes specific measures in the policy. In administrative law, the administrative organs with administrative legislative power explain their own legal norms with the same effect as the legal norms. Force, which belongs to the legal normative documents, is excluded from the scope of the policy. The interpretative documents other than the interpretation of the legal norms formulated by the administrative organs of administrative legislation, and the interpretive documents formulated by the organs without administrative legislative power to the laws, regulations and regulations are illegal solutions. Its effect on the administrative organization is derived from the authority of the administrative organization, not from the document itself; but this effect does not certainly push the administrative counterpart and the judiciary, and does not have compulsory restraint to the judiciary, and therefore does not belong to the legal normative document. Therefore, this article puts these non legal norms for the implementation of the law. Other normative documents are included in the policy scope. Of course, in addition to other normative documents, the policy also includes documents formulated by the administrative organs in other forms and published for the non specific public.
Through the combing of the scholars' discussion on the concept of discretion, this paper adopts the viewpoint of unified discretion, that is, the interpretation of the uncertain legal concept is also administrative discretion. Based on the requirements of the principle of administration according to law, the administrative organs can not depend on the policy administration. But the administrative discretion provides the administrative organ to provide the administrative task through the barrier of law. The policy of the administrative organ has two aspects: first, to solve the policy problems and to realize the administrative task; secondly, to construct and restrain the administrative discretion and its exercise by the legal norms, the role of the policy in practice may have different emphasis. The play of these two functions depends to some extent on the government. The policy has the tools, authority, consistency and professional knowledge (experience), and through the declaration of policy goals, explain the concept of law, regulate the effect of the law and influence the administrative discretion.
Through a case and the hypothesis based on the case, this paper analyzes the two most likely problems that are likely to arise during the process of influencing the power of administrative discretion: discretion and laziness and policy avoidance. The consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the individual situation of the administrative relative will lead to injustice, especially when the policy itself is a rigid policy. On the other hand, if the administrative organs do not deviate from the policy in the process of exercising the right of discretion, they will go against the principle of equal treatment and are more likely to go against the principle of equal treatment. It can violate the principle of legal expected protection to damage the interests of the relative people. The general legal principles, including the legal expected protection, constitute the internal boundary of the exercise of the administrative power. Beyond this boundary will constitute a kind of abuse of rights. In the field of discretion, it can be called the abuse of discretion.
In judicial trial, the judicial organ conducts a limited review of the administrative discretion, namely, the examination of the existence of defects and the violation of the law. The essence of the review of the administrative discretion influenced by the policy lies in whether the examination policy provides sufficient and reasonable justifiable reasons. Therefore, the internal structure of the policy should not be avoided and the internal structure of the policy is examined. Whether it is legitimate or reasonable. In the summary of the Forum on the application of legal norms for administrative cases, the Supreme People's Court of our country clearly defines the standard of examination of abstract administrative acts as legitimacy and rationality. However, in the process of writing, this article finds that the judicial practice is often only examined in the judicial practice by reading the judicial judgment documents. Inspection of its legitimacy, and the application of the legitimacy of the standard is only not inconsistent with the clear provisions of the legal norms. In judicial practice, the standard of the administrative normative documents, including the policy, is reduced to legality. On the one hand, it may be given the judicial respect of knowledge, ability and division of labor; on the other hand, it may also be a cause. In the context of the actual status of the court in the practice of constitutional government in our country, especially in the context of the emphasis on activism, the court is more likely to internalize administrative policy into judicial policy.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D925.3;D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余凌云;;行政裁量的治理——以警察盤查為線索的展開[J];北大法律評論;2009年02期

2 夏勇;我這十年的權(quán)利思考[J];讀書;2004年12期

3 周佑勇;尹建國;;行政裁量的規(guī)范影響因素——以行政慣例與公共政策為中心[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2008年07期

4 姜明安;;論行政裁量權(quán)及其法律規(guī)制[J];湖南社會科學(xué);2009年05期

5 胡亞球,陳迎;論行政自由裁量權(quán)的司法控制[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2001年04期

6 陳駿業(yè);;重新定位行政規(guī)定的功能[J];法商研究;2006年05期

7 鄭春燕;;行政裁量中的政策考量——以“運(yùn)動式”執(zhí)法為例[J];法商研究;2008年02期

8 余鳳;;作為行政法之法源的公共政策研究[J];公法研究;2008年00期

9 王太高;;行政許可撤回、撤銷與信賴保護(hù)[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年02期

10 楊建順;行政裁量的運(yùn)作及其監(jiān)督[J];法學(xué)研究;2004年01期

，

本文編號：1890734