【摘要】：行政程序證據(jù)制度是《行政程序法》中的重要制度,由于我國現(xiàn)階段沒有《行政程序法》,當(dāng)然也沒有在專門的法律文件中系統(tǒng)規(guī)定行政程序證據(jù)制度,行政程序證據(jù)規(guī)則只是散見于一些單行法律、法規(guī)。同時(shí),行政機(jī)關(guān)在辦理行政案件過程中,對于證據(jù)的收集、提供及采納,更多是參照《中華人民共和國行政訴訟法》、《最高人民法院關(guān)于執(zhí)行中華人民共和國行政訴訟法若干問題的解釋》、《最高人民法院關(guān)于行政訴訟證據(jù)若干問題的規(guī)定》。這使得行政程序中行政機(jī)關(guān)在證據(jù)的收集、提供、保存及采納方面缺乏統(tǒng)一的法律支撐,并且行政程序參照司法解釋的規(guī)定在法理上也說不通。況且,行政程序畢竟不是訴訟程序,兩者在證據(jù)規(guī)則方面雖存在共同點(diǎn),但是在諸多方面還是存在著差異。所以不能將訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則全部直接用于行政程序。 本文旨在理清行政程序證據(jù)制度與行政訴訟證據(jù)制度之間的關(guān)系,明確行政程序證據(jù)制度的獨(dú)立地位,建立行政法領(lǐng)域兩種證據(jù)制度的和諧統(tǒng)一、平行不悖的機(jī)制。本文第一個(gè)部分為：行政程序證據(jù)制度概述,包括兩節(jié)內(nèi)容,第一節(jié)為證據(jù)與行政程序證據(jù),第二節(jié)為行政程序證據(jù)制度的原則及價(jià)值追求；第二部分為：我國行政程序證據(jù)制度的現(xiàn)狀,包括兩節(jié)內(nèi)容,第一節(jié)為我國關(guān)于行政程序證據(jù)制度的法律規(guī)定,第二節(jié)為我國行政程序證據(jù)制度與行政訴訟證據(jù)制度的現(xiàn)實(shí)關(guān)系；第三部分為：美國行政程序證據(jù)制度比較分析,包括兩節(jié)內(nèi)容,第一節(jié)為美國的行政程序證據(jù)概述,第二節(jié)為美國行政程序證據(jù)規(guī)則對我國行政程序證據(jù)制度的啟示；第四部分為：我國行政程序證據(jù)制度相對獨(dú)立模式探討,包括三節(jié)內(nèi)容,第一節(jié)為我國行政程序證據(jù)制度相對獨(dú)立的必要性,第二節(jié)為我國行政程序證據(jù)制度相對獨(dú)立的可能性,第三節(jié)為我國行政程序證據(jù)制度平行于行政訴訟證據(jù)制度。
[Abstract]:The evidence system of administrative procedure is an important system in the "Administrative procedure Law". Since there is no "Administrative procedure Law" in our country at the present stage, of course, there is no systematic regulation of the system of evidence of administrative procedure in special legal documents. The rules of evidence of administrative procedure are scattered in some separate laws and regulations. At the same time, in the course of handling administrative cases, the administrative organs shall collect, provide and adopt evidence, More reference is made to the Administrative Litigation Law of the people's Republic of China, the interpretation by the Supreme people's Court on some issues concerning the implementation of the Administrative procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, and the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on some issues concerning the evidence in Administrative Litigation. This makes the administrative organs in the collection, provision, preservation and adoption of evidence in the administrative procedures lack of unified legal support, and administrative procedures refer to the provisions of judicial interpretation in the legal theory is also unreasonable. Moreover, administrative procedure is not litigation procedure after all, although they have common ground in evidence rules, there are still differences in many aspects. Therefore, the rules of evidence can not be directly used in administrative procedures. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between the evidence system of administrative procedure and the system of evidence in administrative proceedings, to clarify the independent status of the system of evidence in administrative procedure, and to establish a mechanism of harmony and unity of the two systems of evidence in the field of administrative law. The first part of this paper is an overview of the evidence system of the administrative procedure, which includes two sections: the first section is the evidence and the evidence of the administrative procedure, the second section is the principle and value pursuit of the evidence system of the administrative procedure; The second part is divided into: our country administrative procedure evidence system present situation, including two sections content, the first section is our country regarding the administrative procedure evidence system law stipulation, The second section is the realistic relationship between the evidence system of administrative procedure in our country and the system of evidence in administrative proceedings; the third part is the comparative analysis of the evidence system of administrative procedure in the United States, including two sections, the first section is an overview of the evidence of administrative procedure in the United States. The second section is the enlightenment of American rules of evidence of administrative procedure to the system of evidence of administrative procedure in our country. The fourth part is about the relative independent mode of evidence system of administrative procedure in our country, which includes three sections. The first section is the necessity of the relative independence of the evidence system of the administrative procedure in our country, the second section is the possibility of the relatively independent system of the evidence system of the administrative procedure in our country, and the third section is that the evidence system of the administrative procedure of our country is parallel to the evidence system of the administrative procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：甘肅政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 王立;;論行政證據(jù)制度[J];晉中學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

2 蔡斌;;論我國行政證據(jù)制度立法的必要性及建構(gòu)[J];吉林廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

3 張芳,張艷;論行政證據(jù)與行政訴訟證據(jù)的相異及銜接[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

4 李牧;論行政證據(jù)的規(guī)制與保障功能[J];武漢理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2003年03期

5 姬亞平;;論行政證據(jù)與行政訴訟證據(jù)關(guān)系之重構(gòu)[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2008年04期

6 沈宏;論行政證據(jù)規(guī)則與訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則多樣化聯(lián)系——兼論行政證據(jù)立法之必要性[J];行政與法(吉林省行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2004年05期

7 茍吉芝;行政證據(jù)證明責(zé)任研究[J];中州學(xué)刊;2005年05期

，

本文編號：2284436