行政機(jī)關(guān)公布食品安全消費警示的法治化研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-15 14:36
【摘要】：在中國,食品安全消費警示的公布主體包括消費者協(xié)會和具有法定職權(quán)的行政機(jī)關(guān)。前者是消費警示制度的創(chuàng)立者,通過啟動“消費警示工程”、制定《消費警示制度實施規(guī)范》等措施來建立和完善公布食品安全消費警示的信息平臺和制度依據(jù),充分發(fā)揮著民間自治組織社會監(jiān)督的作用。對消費者協(xié)會公布的食品安全消費警示有爭議完全可以通過民事訴訟的途徑加以處理,實踐中也不乏其例。近年來,隨著食品安全事故的頻發(fā),行政機(jī)關(guān)也越來越傾向于采用公布消費警示這一類新型的事前規(guī)制手段,有效防范和化解了行政執(zhí)行的風(fēng)險和社會安全的風(fēng)險。但由于行政機(jī)關(guān)法律地位的特殊性,加之食品安全消費警示所對應(yīng)的法律規(guī)范的缺位及救濟(jì)渠道的狹隘,一旦食品安全消費警示公布失范,可能會給被公布方造成難以挽回的傷害,導(dǎo)致社會凈福利的損失�！稗r(nóng)夫山泉砒霜門事件”、“金浩茶油事件”等正暴露出我國食品安全消費警示的公布存在諸多問題,亟需對其進(jìn)行有效的法律治理。沿著基礎(chǔ)理論構(gòu)建、制度依據(jù)設(shè)計、救濟(jì)途徑打造層層遞進(jìn)的思路,來解決當(dāng)前行政機(jī)關(guān)公布食品安全消費警示的困境。具體來說:從基本內(nèi)涵著手,對食品安全消費警示的概念和性質(zhì)進(jìn)行重述。在其概念的內(nèi)涵和外延界定上,通過語義學(xué)解釋及對法律規(guī)范、執(zhí)法實踐的綜合分析,提出食品安全消費警示包含風(fēng)險警示、違法行為警示和其它信息警示三類。在其性質(zhì)的定位上,認(rèn)同食品安全消費警示屬事實行為的特性,但力求弱化不同類型行政行為間涇渭分明的區(qū)隔,建議秉承實用主義的風(fēng)格來重新審視其內(nèi)在屬性,確保社會公共利益維護(hù)和特定人權(quán)益保護(hù)之間的均衡。從類型化研究角度著手,抽離出實踐中食品安全消費警示所涉的法律關(guān)系主體,發(fā)現(xiàn)兩類運作機(jī)理不盡相同的食品安全消費警示,即“雙方型”和“三方型”消費警示。前者受法的控制較弱,發(fā)生爭議的情況較少;后者由于涉及具體的食品生產(chǎn)者、銷售者,一旦行政機(jī)關(guān)錯誤公布食品安全消費警示,則會產(chǎn)生行政權(quán)力濫用、企業(yè)合法權(quán)益和社會福利損害等問題。因此,“三方型”食品安全消費警示應(yīng)當(dāng)成為法律關(guān)注的重點。從正當(dāng)性角度分析,行政機(jī)關(guān)公布食品安全消費警示是服務(wù)行政的必然要求,是對公民知情權(quán)的保障,更是提高行政行為效率的內(nèi)在動力。然而,通過對一些法律規(guī)范與公布實踐的觀察,不難看出食品安全消費警示缺少應(yīng)有的立法支持,實踐中也是亂象叢生。有關(guān)消費警示的規(guī)定散見于各層級的食品安全法規(guī)范中,且越是位階低的規(guī)范設(shè)定食品安全消費警示越密集,授予行政機(jī)關(guān)過多的自由裁量權(quán)。透過“典型事件”折射出食品安全消費警示的公布至少存在以下三方面的問題:一是,公布的主體和權(quán)限不明;二是,公布的條件、內(nèi)容和程序不清;三是,違法公布的法律責(zé)任和救濟(jì)途徑缺失。對比美、日、德等國的立法與司法規(guī)制,發(fā)現(xiàn)食品安全消費警示與正當(dāng)程序、法律保留及比例原則密不可分,這是對我國食品安全消費警示公布制度完善的一點啟示。對食品安全消費警示公布的法治化路徑,必須以類型化區(qū)分為前提,在公共福利最大化的空間內(nèi)統(tǒng)籌考慮行政成本與效率、社會公眾的健康與安全、特定第三人程序的參與權(quán)以及司法審查的成本與效率。具體可從立法構(gòu)造、司法審查及行政自我控制三方面展開。就立法構(gòu)造而言,《食品安全法》、《食品安全信息公布管理辦法》等規(guī)制食品安全的法律法規(guī)并沒有進(jìn)行過系統(tǒng)、完整規(guī)定,有必要從宏觀和微觀上把握食品安全消費警示的立法設(shè)計。從宏觀上看,需要不斷整合食品安全消費警示的立法模式;從微觀上看,需要明確食品安全消費警示的公布主體、權(quán)限及程序,尤其要注意對公布程序的具體設(shè)置�！半p方型”食品安全消費警示在程序的管制上可以適當(dāng)放松,而為確�！叭叫汀笔称钒踩M警示公布的實效性,應(yīng)當(dāng)優(yōu)先確立說明理由制度、聽證制度和時限制度這三項最為關(guān)鍵的程序,使利益相關(guān)者有權(quán)參與公布程序,了解相關(guān)的運作依據(jù)、過程和結(jié)果。就司法審查而言,需要站在新《行政訴訟法》的視角上明確食品安全消費警示的可訴性、司法審查強(qiáng)度和判決類型三個要點。首先,依托法律解釋學(xué)對“行政行為”的概念進(jìn)行闡述,并從實體法政策角度分析“三方型”食品安全消費警示的可訴性;其次,在“合法性審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”下,將行政法基本原則作為食品安全消費警示案件的審理依據(jù)。在此基礎(chǔ)上,可對不同內(nèi)容的食品安全消費警示的審查強(qiáng)度作適當(dāng)區(qū)分;最后,通過訴訟類型的構(gòu)建,為違法食品安全消費警示的受害者編織足夠的權(quán)利保護(hù)網(wǎng)。就行政自我控制而言,第一,通過制定行政規(guī)則,細(xì)化立法規(guī)定的原則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn);第二,建立錯誤信息投訴與處理平臺,完善行政系統(tǒng)內(nèi)部處理制度;第三,充分發(fā)揮行政救濟(jì)的功能,落實責(zé)任追究機(jī)制�？梢哉f,從行政內(nèi)部尋求對公布食品安全消費警示的規(guī)范或許是最為有效的辦法。
[Abstract]:The former is the founder of the consumption warning system, which establishes and perfects the information platform and the administrative organs that publish the food safety consumption warning by initiating the "consumption warning project" and formulating the "implementation standard of the consumption warning system" and other measures. In recent years, with the frequent occurrence of food safety incidents, administrative organs are increasingly inclined to adopt the publication and elimination method. Fee warning, a new type of pre-regulation means, effectively prevents and defuses the risks of administrative execution and social security. However, due to the particularity of the legal status of administrative organs, the absence of legal norms corresponding to food safety consumption warning and the narrow relief channels, once the food safety consumption warning is publicized out of order, it may be possible. It will cause irreparable damage to the publicized party and lead to the loss of social net welfare. "Farmer's Shanquan Arsenic Gate Incident" and "Jinhao Tea Oil Incident" are revealing many problems in the publication of food safety consumption warnings in China, which need to be effectively governed by law. In order to solve the dilemma of publishing food safety consumption warnings by administrative organs, we should restate the concept and nature of food safety consumption warnings from the basic connotation. It is pointed out that food safety consumption warning includes risk warning, illegal behavior warning and other information warning. In terms of its nature, it is recognized that food safety consumption warning belongs to the characteristics of factual behavior, but strives to weaken the distinct distinction between different types of administrative acts. It is suggested to re-examine it in a pragmatic manner. Starting from the angle of typology, this paper draws out the legal relationship subjects involved in food safety consumption warning in practice, and finds that the two types of food safety consumption warning have different operational mechanisms, namely "two-way" and "three-way" consumption warning. As the latter involves specific food producers and sellers, once the administrative organ mispronounces food safety consumption warnings, it will lead to abuse of administrative power, legal rights and interests of enterprises and damage to social welfare. From the perspective of legitimacy, the publication of food safety consumption warnings by administrative organs is the inevitable requirement of service administration, the protection of citizens'right to know, and the internal driving force to improve the efficiency of administrative actions. The provisions on food safety warnings are scattered in the food safety laws and regulations at all levels, and the lower the rank, the more intensive the food safety warnings are, and the more discretion is granted to the administrative organs. There are at least three problems: firstly, the subject and authority of the announcement are not clear; secondly, the conditions, contents and procedures of the announcement are not clear; thirdly, the legal liability and relief channels of illegal announcement are missing. Comparing with the legislation and judicial regulations of the United States, Japan and Germany, it is found that food safety consumption warning and due process, legal reservation and the principle of proportionality. This is a revelation to the perfection of China's food safety warning publication system. The legal path of food safety warning publication must be based on the classification, and the administrative cost and efficiency, the public health and safety, and the special third party procedure should be taken into account in the space of maximizing public welfare. Participation right and the cost and efficiency of judicial review can be carried out from three aspects: legislative structure, judicial review and administrative self-control. From the macroscopic point of view, we need to constantly integrate the legislative model of food safety consumption warning; from the microscopic point of view, we need to clarify the publishing subject, authority and procedure of food safety consumption warning, especially the specific setting of the publishing procedure. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the "tripartite" food safety warning announcement, priority should be given to the establishment of the reasons system, the hearing system and the time limit system, the three most critical procedures, so that stakeholders have the right to participate in the announcement process, to understand the relevant operational basis, process and results. In terms of investigation, it is necessary to clarify the suitability of food safety consumption warnings, the intensity of judicial review and the types of judgments from the perspective of the new Administrative Procedure Law. Secondly, the basic principles of administrative law are taken as the basis of the case of food safety consumption warning under the "legality review standard". On this basis, the intensity of food safety consumption warning with different contents can be properly distinguished. Finally, the victims of illegal food safety consumption warning can be weaved enough by the construction of litigation types. As far as administrative self-control is concerned, firstly, we should formulate administrative rules to refine the principles and standards stipulated by legislation; secondly, we should establish a platform for complaints and handling of erroneous information to improve the internal processing system of the administrative system; thirdly, we should give full play to the function of administrative relief and implement the accountability mechanism. It is probably the most effective way to regulate the announcement of food safety consumption warning.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.16
[Abstract]:The former is the founder of the consumption warning system, which establishes and perfects the information platform and the administrative organs that publish the food safety consumption warning by initiating the "consumption warning project" and formulating the "implementation standard of the consumption warning system" and other measures. In recent years, with the frequent occurrence of food safety incidents, administrative organs are increasingly inclined to adopt the publication and elimination method. Fee warning, a new type of pre-regulation means, effectively prevents and defuses the risks of administrative execution and social security. However, due to the particularity of the legal status of administrative organs, the absence of legal norms corresponding to food safety consumption warning and the narrow relief channels, once the food safety consumption warning is publicized out of order, it may be possible. It will cause irreparable damage to the publicized party and lead to the loss of social net welfare. "Farmer's Shanquan Arsenic Gate Incident" and "Jinhao Tea Oil Incident" are revealing many problems in the publication of food safety consumption warnings in China, which need to be effectively governed by law. In order to solve the dilemma of publishing food safety consumption warnings by administrative organs, we should restate the concept and nature of food safety consumption warnings from the basic connotation. It is pointed out that food safety consumption warning includes risk warning, illegal behavior warning and other information warning. In terms of its nature, it is recognized that food safety consumption warning belongs to the characteristics of factual behavior, but strives to weaken the distinct distinction between different types of administrative acts. It is suggested to re-examine it in a pragmatic manner. Starting from the angle of typology, this paper draws out the legal relationship subjects involved in food safety consumption warning in practice, and finds that the two types of food safety consumption warning have different operational mechanisms, namely "two-way" and "three-way" consumption warning. As the latter involves specific food producers and sellers, once the administrative organ mispronounces food safety consumption warnings, it will lead to abuse of administrative power, legal rights and interests of enterprises and damage to social welfare. From the perspective of legitimacy, the publication of food safety consumption warnings by administrative organs is the inevitable requirement of service administration, the protection of citizens'right to know, and the internal driving force to improve the efficiency of administrative actions. The provisions on food safety warnings are scattered in the food safety laws and regulations at all levels, and the lower the rank, the more intensive the food safety warnings are, and the more discretion is granted to the administrative organs. There are at least three problems: firstly, the subject and authority of the announcement are not clear; secondly, the conditions, contents and procedures of the announcement are not clear; thirdly, the legal liability and relief channels of illegal announcement are missing. Comparing with the legislation and judicial regulations of the United States, Japan and Germany, it is found that food safety consumption warning and due process, legal reservation and the principle of proportionality. This is a revelation to the perfection of China's food safety warning publication system. The legal path of food safety warning publication must be based on the classification, and the administrative cost and efficiency, the public health and safety, and the special third party procedure should be taken into account in the space of maximizing public welfare. Participation right and the cost and efficiency of judicial review can be carried out from three aspects: legislative structure, judicial review and administrative self-control. From the macroscopic point of view, we need to constantly integrate the legislative model of food safety consumption warning; from the microscopic point of view, we need to clarify the publishing subject, authority and procedure of food safety consumption warning, especially the specific setting of the publishing procedure. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the "tripartite" food safety warning announcement, priority should be given to the establishment of the reasons system, the hearing system and the time limit system, the three most critical procedures, so that stakeholders have the right to participate in the announcement process, to understand the relevant operational basis, process and results. In terms of investigation, it is necessary to clarify the suitability of food safety consumption warnings, the intensity of judicial review and the types of judgments from the perspective of the new Administrative Procedure Law. Secondly, the basic principles of administrative law are taken as the basis of the case of food safety consumption warning under the "legality review standard". On this basis, the intensity of food safety consumption warning with different contents can be properly distinguished. Finally, the victims of illegal food safety consumption warning can be weaved enough by the construction of litigation types. As far as administrative self-control is concerned, firstly, we should formulate administrative rules to refine the principles and standards stipulated by legislation; secondly, we should establish a platform for complaints and handling of erroneous information to improve the internal processing system of the administrative system; thirdly, we should give full play to the function of administrative relief and implement the accountability mechanism. It is probably the most effective way to regulate the announcement of food safety consumption warning.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.16
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 何駿;;行政公布食品安全消費警示制度的檢視與反思[J];中共南京市委黨校學(xué)報;2014年03期
2 何駿;;行政公布食品安全消費警示制度的檢視與反思[J];四川行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年03期
3 ;消費警示[J];老同志之友;2008年01期
4 曉馬;2000年第2號消費警示:糖精毒害不可低估[J];鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)論壇;2000年05期
5 ;警惕裝修危害——廣西發(fā)布2006年第1號消費警示[J];建筑裝飾材料世界;2006年04期
6 林沈節(jié);;“消費警示”及其制度化——從“農(nóng)夫山泉砒霜門事件”談起[J];東方法學(xué);2011年02期
7 ;謹(jǐn)防“中獎騙局”[J];支部生活;2005年05期
8 于楊曜;;論食品安全消費警示行為的法律性質(zhì)及其規(guī)制——兼論《食品安全法》第八十二條之法理解析[J];學(xué)海;2012年01期
9 徐信貴;;消費警示的危險性要件研究[J];安徽行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年01期
10 尹衛(wèi)國;;誰制造了“抗癌”神話[J];w，
本文編號：2184503
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingzhengfalunwen/2184503.html
最近更新
教材專著
