【摘要】：行政失權(quán)，是指行政主體對(duì)相對(duì)人既有法律資格的限制或剝奪。其以相對(duì)人的權(quán)利能力為作用對(duì)象，而非通常意義上對(duì)具體權(quán)利的限制。權(quán)利能力的喪失，實(shí)質(zhì)是法律人格的減損，由此形成一種法律上的“負(fù)身份”，意味著法律能力的減損、法律地位的下降。行政失權(quán)以行政確權(quán)、賦權(quán)為實(shí)施前提，強(qiáng)調(diào)在承認(rèn)相對(duì)人原本享有權(quán)利能力的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)既有資格的剝奪，作用結(jié)果表現(xiàn)為使相對(duì)人“失其本所得”，由此處于一種不僅“不能與凡人齊”、且亦“不能與自身先前同”的不利狀態(tài)。行政失權(quán)是行政主體組織和管理社會(huì)的有效手段。 權(quán)利能力的國家賦予性、公法人格的特殊性及個(gè)體正當(dāng)行為的可期待性，為行政失權(quán)制度的存立提供了正當(dāng)基礎(chǔ)。盡管人性尊嚴(yán)與平等已成為現(xiàn)代立法普遍接受的理念，可生物學(xué)意義上的人與法律意義人的區(qū)分，向來是理解法律人格的前提。這種區(qū)分正鮮明揭示出人格從來都是由法律賦予的，權(quán)利能力制度乃是一項(xiàng)實(shí)在法上的人為設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)果。確切地說，權(quán)利能力是國家用以作用于社會(huì)成員的一種調(diào)控手段，權(quán)利能力的有無、多少，甚至特定情形下的具體化、類型化，均是國家意志的作用的結(jié)果。尤其在公法關(guān)系中，社會(huì)成員一方面因自然屬性以人的資格參與法律關(guān)系，另一方面又因政治等社會(huì)屬性以成員資格參與特殊關(guān)系；這種一般法律關(guān)系與特殊法律關(guān)系的區(qū)分主要通過一般權(quán)利能力與特殊權(quán)利能力的制度設(shè)計(jì)來體現(xiàn)。共同體可根據(jù)角色承擔(dān)的要求不同，進(jìn)行各種特殊權(quán)利能力的配置；同時(shí)，權(quán)利能力暗含著國家對(duì)個(gè)體正當(dāng)行為的合理期待。從權(quán)利的成本觀念及共同善的維系角度，國家在配置權(quán)利能力時(shí)均要求個(gè)體在享有權(quán)利能力的同時(shí)，也負(fù)擔(dān)正當(dāng)行為的責(zé)任。由此也構(gòu)成通過行政失權(quán)對(duì)不當(dāng)行為的個(gè)體剝奪其權(quán)利能力的正當(dāng)性理由。 實(shí)踐中，行政失權(quán)形式繁多。從失權(quán)的原因事由上看，有因法定客觀條件成就而導(dǎo)致的自動(dòng)失權(quán)，有因相對(duì)人主觀意愿決定的主動(dòng)失權(quán)，更為常見的是因相對(duì)人自身賦權(quán)條件缺失而導(dǎo)致的被動(dòng)失權(quán)。行政失權(quán)的內(nèi)容涉及公民能力、特定職業(yè)能力、特定行為資格等特殊權(quán)利能力，也包括某種程度上的一般權(quán)利能力。行政失權(quán)存在多層次的作用形式，既可能表現(xiàn)為對(duì)特殊賦權(quán)的撤回，使相對(duì)人喪失某類正身份，回復(fù)到一般法律主體的地位；也可能是對(duì)一般權(quán)利能力的限制，從而使相對(duì)人背負(fù)某類負(fù)身份。行政失權(quán)，在嚴(yán)格意義上是作為一種“類概念”被使用，基于失權(quán)原因事由不同、行政作用模式的差異，不同形式的失權(quán)行為法律性質(zhì)并不完全相同。資格罰固然是行政失權(quán)最集中、最典型的表現(xiàn)形式，但實(shí)踐中行政失權(quán)還可能體現(xiàn)為行政不利處分行為、行政確認(rèn)行為、甚至作為其它法律行為附隨后果而存在。 鑒于行政失權(quán)對(duì)相對(duì)人權(quán)益的重大影響，，有必要從立法形式、制度內(nèi)容及實(shí)施程序等方面對(duì)失權(quán)制度進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)規(guī)范。在立法形式上，應(yīng)提高行政失權(quán)規(guī)范的法律位階，強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)失權(quán)的設(shè)定權(quán)采取法律保留原則，明確只有法律和行政法規(guī)方得設(shè)定失權(quán)條款，且應(yīng)嚴(yán)格規(guī)范各規(guī)范性文件中對(duì)失權(quán)的具體規(guī)定內(nèi)容；在行政失權(quán)內(nèi)容設(shè)置上，應(yīng)充分保障人性尊嚴(yán)，并遵循比例原則，妥適地界定失權(quán)內(nèi)容邊界；在行政失權(quán)行為的實(shí)施環(huán)節(jié)，要全面系統(tǒng)構(gòu)建正當(dāng)程序，尤其要完善相對(duì)人申請(qǐng)聽證程序、行政主體的告知及登記公示等環(huán)節(jié)，以有效防范行政權(quán)濫用，保障相對(duì)人權(quán)益。 從行政作用的系統(tǒng)性考慮，且也為更全面地保障相對(duì)人權(quán)益，行政失權(quán)還應(yīng)有相配套的法律回復(fù)制度，使相對(duì)人被剝奪或限制的權(quán)利能力存在恢復(fù)的可能與保障。法律回復(fù)制度，包括對(duì)行政失權(quán)行為的法律救濟(jì)，及對(duì)行政失權(quán)狀態(tài)的法律消解兩個(gè)層面。前者通過復(fù)議、訴訟等途徑，撤銷違法行政失權(quán)行為的效力，回復(fù)相對(duì)人被錯(cuò)誤限制或剝奪的權(quán)利能力；后者則強(qiáng)調(diào)在行政失權(quán)行為合法存續(xù)的前提下，對(duì)失權(quán)狀態(tài)的消解。行政失權(quán)法律回復(fù)的運(yùn)作，與行政確認(rèn)（許可）、行政失權(quán)一起，構(gòu)成了行政權(quán)對(duì)相對(duì)人權(quán)利能力從“賦權(quán)”到“失權(quán)”再到“復(fù)權(quán)”的完整過程。
[Abstract]:The loss of administrative power refers to the restriction or deprivation of the legal qualifications of the counterpart by the administrative subject, whose object is the ability of the counterpart, not the restriction of the concrete rights in the ordinary sense. Administrative disempowerment is based on the premise of administrative confirmation and empowerment. It emphasizes the deprivation of existing qualifications on the basis of the recognition of the relative person's original ability to enjoy rights. The result is that the relative person "loses his original income", which is not only "not equal to the ordinary person", but also "can not be the same as himself before." The administrative loss of power is an effective means for the administrative body to organize and manage the society.
Although human dignity and equality have become generally accepted concepts in modern legislation, the distinction between man in biological sense and man in legal sense has always been an understanding of legal personality. This distinction clearly reveals that personality is always given by law, and the system of capacity for rights is the result of a man-made design in real law. It is the result of the will of the state. Especially in public law relations, social members take part in legal relations because of their natural attributes and human qualifications, and on the other hand, because of their political and other social attributes, they take part in special relations with membership. Communities can allocate different kinds of special rights and abilities according to the different requirements of their roles. At the same time, rights and abilities imply the reasonable expectations of the state for the proper behavior of individuals. From the perspective of the cost concept of rights and the maintenance of common good, the state requires the individual to enjoy the allocation of rights and abilities. At the same time, it also bears the responsibility of legitimate acts, which constitutes the legitimate reason for depriving the individual of the improper acts of his rights through administrative loss of power.
In practice, there are many forms of administrative loss of power. Seen from the reasons for the loss of power, there are automatic loss of power due to the achievement of statutory objective conditions, active loss of power due to the subjective will of the relative person, and more commonly, passive loss of power due to the lack of the relative person's own empowerment conditions. The special capacity for rights, such as professional ability, specific behavioral qualification and so on, also includes the general capacity for rights to a certain extent. Administrative disempowerment, in a strict sense, is used as a kind of "category concept". Due to different reasons for disempowerment, different modes of administrative action, different forms of disempowerment have different legal nature. Qualification penalty is the most concentrated and typical form of administrative disempowerment, but it is true. In practice, administrative loss of power may also be manifested as administrative unfavorable punishment, administrative confirmation, or even as a consequence of other legal acts.
In view of the great influence of administrative loss of power on the rights and interests of the counterpart, it is necessary to systematically regulate the system of administrative loss of power from the aspects of legislative form, system content and implementation procedure. The article of loss of power should be set up, and the specific provisions of loss of power should be strictly regulated in the normative documents; the content of loss of power should be set up to fully protect human dignity, and follow the principle of proportionality, properly define the boundary of loss of power content; in the implementation of administrative loss of power, we should build a comprehensive and systematic due process, especially perfect it. In order to effectively prevent the abuse of administrative power and protect the rights and interests of the counterpart, the procedure of applying for hearing by the counterpart, the notification of the administrative subject, and the publicity of registration and so on.
In view of the systematic consideration of the administrative function and the more comprehensive protection of the rights and interests of the counterpart, the system of legal replication of administrative loss of power should be matched so that the counterpart's ability to be deprived or restricted may be restored. The system of legal replication includes the legal remedies for administrative loss of power and the law on the state of administrative loss of power. The former revokes the validity of illegal administrative disempowerment by means of reconsideration and litigation, and restores the relative person's ability to be wrongly restricted or deprived; the latter emphasizes the dissolution of the state of disempowerment on the premise of the legal existence of administrative disempowerment; the operation of legal reply to administrative disempowerment, and administrative confirmation (permission). Together, administrative loss of power constitutes a complete process from "empowerment" to "loss of power" and then to "restoration of power" for the rights and abilities of the counterpart.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D912.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周清林;;中國語境中的“權(quán)利能力”[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2009年01期

2 徐國棟;;權(quán)利能力制度的理想與現(xiàn)實(shí)——人法的英特納雄耐爾之路[J];北方法學(xué);2007年02期

3 沈建峰;;權(quán)利能力概念的形成和變遷[J];北方法學(xué);2011年03期

4 李永軍;論權(quán)利能力的本質(zhì)[J];比較法研究;2005年02期

5 徐國棟;尋找丟失的人格——從羅馬、德國、拉丁法族國家、前蘇聯(lián)、俄羅斯到中國[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

6 徐國棟;;從身份到理性——現(xiàn)代民法中的行為能力制度沿革考[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

7 王立;中外法官權(quán)利能力和行為能力的比較分析——遴選優(yōu)秀法官機(jī)制的法理基礎(chǔ)比較解析[J];法律適用;2004年04期

8 胡玉鴻;;“人格”在當(dāng)代法律上的意義[J];法商研究;2008年04期

9 張旭勇;;為我國行政事實(shí)行為救濟(jì)制度辯護(hù)[J];法商研究;2012年02期

10 楊立新;論人格利益準(zhǔn)共有[J];法學(xué)雜志;2004年06期

本文編號(hào)：2179476