【摘要】：制度外抗?fàn)幣c制度內(nèi)法律維權(quán)有著顯著不同的結(jié)果和制度邏輯�，F(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)中的"依法抗?fàn)?或"以法抗?fàn)?可以通過制度外或者制度邊緣的集體行動獲得政府及時的反應(yīng),但卻有著多重困境:機(jī)會困境、風(fēng)險困境、組織困境、制度困境。制度內(nèi)法律維權(quán)可以很大程度上破解這些困境,但也有著該模式下獨特的結(jié)果困境:費時費力而又缺乏即時直接的回報困擾或者阻礙制度內(nèi)法律維權(quán)者去為了獲得長期的有益于整個群體的普遍性制度化后果采取行動。但本研究中的業(yè)主維權(quán)行動在一定程度上破解了這一困境。他們的制度內(nèi)維權(quán)行動讓法律在實踐中最大可能地運轉(zhuǎn)了起來,從而超越了傳統(tǒng)維權(quán)的困境。獨特的政治機(jī)會結(jié)構(gòu)和制度內(nèi)維權(quán)本身所具有的特征,促進(jìn)一些群體走向法庭,而非走上街頭。
[Abstract]:There are significantly different results and institutional logic between outside-system protest and intra-institutional legal rights protection. The "legal struggle" or "legal struggle" in the existing literature can obtain the timely response of the government through collective action outside the system or on the edge of the system, but it has multiple dilemmas: opportunity dilemma, risk dilemma, organizational dilemma, and institutional dilemma. Legal rights within the system can largely solve these dilemmas, But there is also a unique outcome dilemma in this model: time-consuming and lack of immediate and direct rewards or hindrance for legal defenders in the system to act in order to achieve long-term, universal, institutionalized consequences that benefit the whole community. However, the owner's rights-defending action in this study solved this dilemma to a certain extent. Their actions of safeguarding rights within the system make the law operate as possible in practice, thus surpassing the dilemma of traditional rights protection. Unique political opportunity structures and the very characteristics of rights within the system promote groups to the courts rather than to the streets.
【作者單位】： 中山大學(xué)中國公共管理研究中心、政治與公共事務(wù)管理學(xué)院;
【基金】：國家社科基金重大招標(biāo)項目“擴(kuò)大公民有序政治參與:戰(zhàn)略;路徑與對策”(基金號12&ZD040)資助~~
【分類號】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳鵬;;從“產(chǎn)權(quán)”走向“公民權(quán)”——當(dāng)前中國城市業(yè)主維權(quán)研究[J];開放時代;2009年04期

2 于濱;“一票否決”保一方平安[J];w攣胖蕓，

本文編號：2456761