本文選題：行政合同 + 先合同義務(wù)��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：行政合同的先合同義務(wù)概念是基于行政合同的行政性和契約性而提出的。它所建構(gòu)的邏輯起點(diǎn)是與行政性相對(duì)的正當(dāng)程序原則和與契約性相對(duì)的誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則。正當(dāng)程序原則所對(duì)應(yīng)的是行政合同中的“隱形”主體缺位及行政合同相對(duì)人的權(quán)利保護(hù)缺失的問(wèn)題，其目的在于彌補(bǔ)民事合同之誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則在行政合同締結(jié)理論上的漏洞，與克服行政合同締結(jié)實(shí)務(wù)中解決問(wèn)題的困處。 具體地說(shuō)，行政合同之先合同義務(wù)包括兩大方面：一是以正當(dāng)程序原則為基點(diǎn)構(gòu)建的先合同義務(wù)；二是以誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則為基點(diǎn)構(gòu)建的先合同義務(wù)。對(duì)此，，通過(guò)行政法學(xué)原理及個(gè)案之應(yīng)然需求的初步構(gòu)繪，可知，前者應(yīng)至少包括“擬訂立行政合同的理由公開(kāi)”、“選擇合同相對(duì)方的要求公開(kāi)”、“涉及公眾相關(guān)利益的事項(xiàng)公開(kāi)”等擬定事項(xiàng)公開(kāi)義務(wù)，組織公眾參與義務(wù)，協(xié)議草案公開(kāi)義務(wù)，說(shuō)明理由義務(wù)等內(nèi)容；而后者則包括嚴(yán)格審查義務(wù)，充分協(xié)商義務(wù)，及時(shí)通知義務(wù)，合法競(jìng)爭(zhēng)義務(wù)及忠誠(chéng)保密義務(wù)等內(nèi)容。 而通過(guò)一些行政規(guī)范與行政合同案例的觀察，不難發(fā)現(xiàn)先合同義務(wù)欠缺程序性保護(hù)與實(shí)體性保護(hù)。在程序性保護(hù)義務(wù)上主要存在的問(wèn)題是：（1）合同義務(wù)受體尚不明確；（2）競(jìng)爭(zhēng)與協(xié)商義務(wù)被忽視。在實(shí)體性保護(hù)義務(wù)上主要表現(xiàn)為：（1）行政規(guī)范對(duì)實(shí)體保護(hù)缺失；（2）行政機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)合同實(shí)體保護(hù)初現(xiàn)端倪但仍舊不足；（3）法院對(duì)合同實(shí)體保護(hù)的發(fā)展不夠。 對(duì)于現(xiàn)狀，就行政合同先合同義務(wù)中的保護(hù)及先合同義務(wù)體系的發(fā)展，可從法院、規(guī)范制定主體及行政合同主體自身三方面演進(jìn)。就法院而言，首先，它可在理性定位行政合同締結(jié)過(guò)程的基礎(chǔ)上通過(guò)個(gè)案發(fā)展先合同義務(wù)。理性定位要求在以人為本的基本指導(dǎo)思想的基礎(chǔ)上宏觀把握行政合同的締結(jié)程序。在此基礎(chǔ)上，可衍生出公益訴訟制度，和爭(zhēng)議條款違法或無(wú)效制度。其次，法院可以在判決書(shū)中引入先合同義務(wù)的相關(guān)內(nèi)容甚至直接顯示，亦可通過(guò)司法建議提高行政主體處理先合同義務(wù)問(wèn)題上的自覺(jué)性。在立法上，則表現(xiàn)為《行政程序法》中關(guān)于行政合同締結(jié)程序的民主性參與的設(shè)計(jì)，以及地方立法主體在合同規(guī)范制定中的積極作為。而行政合同主體自身的要求主要表現(xiàn)在行政主體依法履行職責(zé)，合同相對(duì)人誠(chéng)信締約及“隱形”主體積極參與三個(gè)方面。當(dāng)然，這幾種演進(jìn)模式必須聯(lián)動(dòng)起來(lái)，及時(shí)反映行政合同締結(jié)程序中的實(shí)踐問(wèn)題，從而為先合同義務(wù)在行政合同域的發(fā)展提供更滋養(yǎng)的土壤。
[Abstract]:The concept of prior contract obligation of administrative contract is based on the administrative and contractual nature of administrative contract. Its logical starting point is the principle of due process relative to administration and the principle of good faith relative to contract. What the principle of due process corresponds to is the absence of the "invisible" subject in the administrative contract and the lack of protection of the rights of the counterpart of the administrative contract. The purpose of the principle is to make up for the loopholes in the theory of the conclusion of the administrative contract by the principle of good faith and credibility of the civil contract. To overcome the difficulties of solving problems in the practice of concluding administrative contracts. Specifically, the pre-contract obligation of administrative contract includes two aspects: one is based on the principle of due process, the other is based on the principle of good faith. In view of this, through the preliminary construction of the principle of administrative law and the need for the case, we can know that the former should include at least "the reasons for drawing up the administrative contract" and "the requirement of choosing the opposite party of the contract to be open". The obligation to make matters public, such as "disclosure of matters concerning public interests", the obligation to organize public participation, the obligation to make public the draft agreement, the obligation to explain the reasons, etc., while the latter includes the obligation to strictly examine and fully consult, Timely notification obligations, legal competition obligations and loyalty and confidentiality obligations and other content. Through the observation of some administrative norms and administrative contract cases, it is not difficult to find that the first contract obligation lacks procedural protection and substantive protection. The main problems in procedural obligation of protection are: (1) the receptor of contractual obligation is not clear; (2) the obligation of competition and negotiation is ignored. The main manifestations of the substantive protection obligations are: (1) the lack of substantive protection by administrative norms; (2) the initial appearance of the protection of contract entities by administrative organs but still insufficient; (3) the lack of development of the protection of contract entities by the courts. With regard to the present situation, the protection of the prior contract obligation of the administrative contract and the development of the system of the prior contractual obligation can evolve from three aspects: the court, the normative subject and the administrative contract subject itself. As far as the court is concerned, first of all, it can develop the pre-contract obligation by case on the basis of the rational orientation of the administrative contract conclusion process. Rational orientation requires holding the procedure of concluding administrative contract macroscopically on the basis of the basic guiding ideology of people-oriented. On this basis, we can derive the public interest litigation system, and dispute clause illegal or invalid system. Secondly, the court can introduce the relevant contents of the prior contract obligation into the judgment, and can also improve the consciousness of the administrative subject in dealing with the issue of the prior contract obligation through judicial advice. In legislation, it is manifested in the design of democratic participation in the procedure of concluding administrative contracts in the Administrative procedure Law and the positive action of the local legislative subjects in the formulation of contract norms. The main demands of the main body of the administrative contract are that the subject of the administrative contract performs its duties according to the law, that the contract counterpart signs the contract in good faith and that the subject takes an active part in the "invisible" subject. Of course, these evolution modes must be linked up to reflect the practical problems in the administrative contract conclusion process in time, thus providing a more nourishing soil for the development of the pre-contract obligation in the administrative contract domain.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 于立深;行政立法過(guò)程的利益表達(dá)、意見(jiàn)溝通和整合[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年02期

2 章劍生;;行政征收程序論——以集體土地征收為例[J];東方法學(xué);2009年02期

3 楊建順;行政立法過(guò)程的民主參與和利益表達(dá)[J];法商研究;2004年03期

4 戚建剛,李學(xué)堯;行政合同的特權(quán)與法律控制[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1998年02期

5 于安;行政訴訟的公益訴訟和客觀訴訟問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué);2001年05期

6 章劍生;;作為公民參與的“旁聽(tīng)權(quán)”及其公法保障——以浙江省人大常委會(huì)的《決定》為例[J];法治研究;2009年02期

7 石佑啟;;論法治視野下行政管理方式的創(chuàng)新[J];廣東社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年06期

8 高秦偉;;行政過(guò)程中的政策形成——一種方法論上的追問(wèn)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年05期

9 江利紅;;論行政法實(shí)施過(guò)程的全面動(dòng)態(tài)考察[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年03期

10 章劍生;;我國(guó)行政模式與現(xiàn)代行政法的變遷[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年04期

本文編號(hào)：2086300