本文選題：一事不二罰 + 行政責(zé)任�。� 參考：《中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：一事不二罰原則，是行政執(zhí)法的重要原則之一。也是實務(wù)界、學(xué)界討論研究的熱點問題。目前，行政執(zhí)法的合法性程度相較其他部門法偏低，一方面因為理論研究對立法實踐、執(zhí)法實踐的貢獻(xiàn)不足，另一方面行政行為的司法審查制度還不完善，以列舉式規(guī)定的行政訴訟的受案范圍還比較狹窄，導(dǎo)致行政行為事實上的不可訴，，排斥司法的介入進(jìn)一步導(dǎo)致行政執(zhí)法的合法性降低，第三方面?zhèn)鹘y(tǒng)行政法學(xué)研究偏重于行政行為概念的法律化以及制度的建構(gòu)，欠缺對行政行為外部環(huán)境的關(guān)注，尤其對行政主體中執(zhí)法人員的執(zhí)法邏輯關(guān)注不夠。基于上述原因，一事不二罰原則在行政執(zhí)法中的貫徹落實還存在大量的問題，其直接后果是導(dǎo)致行政相對人的合法權(quán)益得不到有效的維護，甚至損害相對人的權(quán)益，更深遠(yuǎn)的影響是破壞了有機統(tǒng)一的法律體系，對現(xiàn)階段政府主導(dǎo)下的現(xiàn)代化轉(zhuǎn)型帶來一種阻力，即法律實施受到個體的抵制，增加實施難度，加大執(zhí)法成本。本文選取執(zhí)法中行政責(zé)任和刑事責(zé)任的銜接、厘清為分析對象來反映一事不二罰原則在中國法制中的貫徹與落實。行政責(zé)任，是行政管理過程中對相關(guān)行為進(jìn)行否定性評價的結(jié)果，刑事責(zé)任，則是對嚴(yán)重違反社會管理規(guī)范、嚴(yán)重侵犯公民合法權(quán)益等行為的強烈否定評價。兩者的銜接與厘清，一直是法律實踐中的難題，鑒于此，國家各級行政機關(guān)、司法機關(guān)逐步建立起行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法的銜接工作機制，但是多以不同行政領(lǐng)域與刑事司法的銜接形態(tài)出現(xiàn)，比如工商、稅務(wù)、農(nóng)業(yè)等領(lǐng)域各自獨立。行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法的銜接、厘清是一項系統(tǒng)性工程，從制度設(shè)立的目的上著手，分清兩者的關(guān)系，統(tǒng)一行政執(zhí)法機關(guān)、司法部門對刑事責(zé)任、行政責(zé)任的認(rèn)識，以證據(jù)研究為突破口，妥善處理不同規(guī)定之間的沖突，同時，可以逐步設(shè)立權(quán)限爭議的協(xié)調(diào)處理機構(gòu)，從制度建設(shè)上杜絕有案不移、以罰代刑的現(xiàn)象發(fā)生，有效發(fā)揮出法律的社會治理功能。
[Abstract]:The principle of no two punishment is one of the important principles of administrative law enforcement. It is also a hot issue in the field of practice and academic research. At present, the degree of legality of administrative law enforcement is lower than that of other branches of law. On the one hand, the contribution of theoretical research to legislative practice and law enforcement practice is insufficient; on the other hand, the judicial review system of administrative acts is not perfect. The scope of accepting cases in administrative proceedings prescribed by enumerations is still relatively narrow, which leads to the fact that administrative acts are not actionable, and the exclusion of judicial intervention further reduces the legitimacy of administrative law enforcement. In the third aspect, the traditional study of administrative law emphasizes on the legalization of the concept of administrative act and the construction of the system, and lacks of attention to the external environment of administrative act, especially to the law enforcement logic of law enforcement personnel in the administrative subject. For the above reasons, there are still a lot of problems in the implementation of the principle of double punishment in administrative law enforcement. The direct result is that the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart cannot be effectively safeguarded, and even the rights and interests of the counterpart are damaged. The more far-reaching influence is to destroy the organic unified legal system and bring a kind of resistance to the modernization transformation under the guidance of the government at the present stage, that is, the implementation of the law is resisted by the individual, increases the difficulty of the implementation, and increases the cost of enforcing the law. This article selects the connection between administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility in law enforcement, and clarifies the implementation and implementation of the principle of "no two punishment" in China's legal system. Administrative responsibility is the result of negative evaluation of related acts in the process of administration, while criminal responsibility is a strong negative evaluation of serious violations of social management norms and serious infringement of citizens' legitimate rights and interests. The convergence and clarification of the two has always been a difficult problem in the practice of law. In view of this, the administrative organs at all levels of the state and the judicial organs have gradually established a working mechanism for the convergence of administrative law enforcement and criminal justice. However, most of them are connected with criminal justice in different administrative fields, such as industry and commerce, taxation, agriculture and so on. It is a systematic project to clarify the connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal judicature. From the point of view of the establishment of the system, we should distinguish the relationship between the two, unify the understanding of the administrative law enforcement agencies and the judicial departments on the criminal responsibility and administrative responsibility. Taking evidence research as a breakthrough, properly handling the conflicts between different provisions, at the same time, we can gradually set up a coordinating agency for handling disputes over jurisdiction, so as to put an end to the phenomenon of not moving cases and replacing punishment with punishment in terms of system construction. The social governance function of the law should be brought into play effectively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.11;D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 周佑勇;劉艷紅;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法相銜接的程序機制研究[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年01期

2 周佑勇,劉艷紅;論行政處罰與刑罰處罰的適用銜接[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1997年02期

3 楊海坤;;論行政處罰應(yīng)遵循的若干原則[J];政法學(xué)刊;1991年03期

4 元明;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法相銜接的理論與實踐[J];人民檢察;2011年12期

5 徐燕平;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法相銜接工作機制研究——兼談檢察機關(guān)對行政執(zhí)法機關(guān)移送涉嫌犯罪案件的監(jiān)督[J];犯罪研究;2005年02期

6 魏曉晗;行政處罰中“事數(shù)認(rèn)定”初探[J];中國質(zhì)量技術(shù)監(jiān)督;2005年07期

本文編號：1913480