【摘要】：行政賠償制度是國家賠償法的核心內容，也是行政救濟制度的重要組成部分，為保障公民、法人和其他組織的合法權益起到了極大的作用。然而，自該制度實施以來，由于歷史條件、現(xiàn)實狀況等多種因素的制約，盡管經過兩次修改，，但是我國大陸地區(qū)的行政賠償制度仍有不足，具體表現(xiàn)在歸責原則、賠償范圍、賠償程序和賠償機關方面。本文力圖從我國目前的實際情況出發(fā)，在比較大陸與臺灣相關制度的基礎上，探討具有可行性的意見，為完善行政賠償制度提供參考。 主要包括以下內容： 第一部分，比較大陸與臺灣的歸責原則。參照世界各國通行的歸責原則，通過對大陸現(xiàn)行歸責原則的分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)單一的歸責原則引發(fā)了諸多問題，而臺灣的雙重歸責原則帶來了啟示，最終明確應建立以違法歸責原則為主的多元化歸責體系。 第二部分，比較大陸與臺灣的賠償范圍。臺灣地區(qū)的立法參照日、韓等國，囊括了公有公共設施致害引起的賠償。針對我國大陸地區(qū)賠償范圍較窄，建議將公有公共設施、抽象行政行為、裁量性行政行為、內部行政行為、行政不作為引起的損害納入行政賠償?shù)姆秶?第三部分，比較大陸與臺灣的賠償程序。首先是先行處理程序。臺灣的“協(xié)議先行”將賠償義務機關與賠償請求人置于同等法律地位，這種行政意識弱化的方式極大地限制了行政機關作出單方決定的可能。本文認為應當通過法律具體規(guī)定賠償機關受理申請的程序，以及明確先行處理程序的操作規(guī)范等。其次，在賠償訴訟程序中，除了行政和司法途徑之外，還可參照臺灣增加通過民事訴訟獲得國家賠償?shù)姆绞�。最后為追償程序。臺灣使用的是更為謹慎的“求償”字樣，與臺灣相比，大陸地區(qū)的追償規(guī)定不允許公務員提起訴訟，不利于保障公務員的個人權益。建議可借鑒臺灣地區(qū)的此項規(guī)定。 第四部分，比較大陸與臺灣的賠償義務機關�？蓞⒄张_灣的立法規(guī)定，在政府之外，設立相對獨立的賠償委員會，專門受理侵權損害賠償請求。
[Abstract]:The system of administrative compensation is the core content of the state compensation law and an important part of the administrative relief system, which plays a great role in protecting the legal rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations. However, since the implementation of the system, due to historical conditions, reality and other factors, although twice modified, the administrative compensation system in mainland China is still inadequate, which is embodied in the principle of imputation, the scope of compensation, and so on. Procedures and organs for compensation. Based on the comparison of the relevant systems between mainland China and Taiwan, this paper tries to discuss the feasible opinions on the basis of the actual situation of our country at present, so as to provide a reference for perfecting the administrative compensation system. Mainly includes the following contents: the first part, compares the mainland and Taiwan's imputation principle. Referring to the common principle of imputation in the world, through the analysis of the current principle of imputation in mainland China, it is found that the single principle of imputation has caused many problems, while the principle of double imputation in Taiwan has brought enlightenment. Finally, it is clear that we should establish a pluralistic imputation system based on the principle of illegal imputation. The second part compares the scope of compensation between mainland China and Taiwan. Taiwan's legislative reference date, South Korea and other countries, including public facilities caused by compensation. In view of the narrow scope of compensation in mainland China, it is suggested that the damages caused by public utilities, abstract administrative acts, discretionary administrative acts, internal administrative acts and administrative omissions should be brought into the scope of administrative compensation. The third part compares the compensation procedure between mainland China and Taiwan. The first is the first processing procedure. Taiwan's "agreement first" puts the organ of compensation obligation and the claimant of compensation on the same legal status. This way of weakening administrative consciousness greatly limits the possibility that the administrative organ can make unilateral decision. The author thinks that the procedure of accepting the application by the compensation organ should be specified by law, as well as the operation standard of the procedure of dealing with the procedure in advance. Secondly, in compensation proceedings, in addition to administrative and judicial channels, we can also refer to the increase in Taiwan through civil proceedings to obtain state compensation. The last is the procedure of recovery. Taiwan uses the word "claim" more carefully. Compared with Taiwan, the mainland's recovery rules do not allow civil servants to file lawsuits, which is not conducive to protecting the individual rights and interests of civil servants. The suggestion may draw lessons from this regulation in Taiwan. The fourth part, compares the compensation obligation organs between the mainland and Taiwan. According to Taiwan's legislation, a relatively independent compensation commission should be set up outside the government to deal with tort claims.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊澤延 ,姚輝;美國國家賠償制度縱橫[J];比較法研究;1988年03期

2 馬懷德;行政機關賠償協(xié)議程序[J];法律適用;1994年02期

3 江必新;;適用修改后的《國家賠償法》應當著重把握的若干問題[J];法律適用;2011年06期

4 廖海;中外國家賠償制度之比較[J];法學評論;1996年01期

5 章志遠;我國行政賠償制度完善之構想[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學院學報;2005年02期

6 王文惠;簡論我國行政賠償?shù)某绦颉孀h國家賠償難,難在程序不完善[J];貴州大學學報(社會科學版);2002年05期

7 楊尚東;;怠于履行職責致害賠償?shù)娜舾蓡栴}討論[J];江蘇警官學院學報;2012年06期

8 葉必豐;;具體行政行為的法律效果要件[J];東方法學;2013年02期

9 張敏敏;喬劍英;;對我國國家賠償范圍的認識與反思[J];法制與經濟(下旬);2013年09期

10 馬懷德;;試述我國行政賠償制度建立的障礙及對策[J];當代法學;1989年01期

本文編號：2410049