【摘要】：行政賠償制度是國(guó)家賠償法的核心內(nèi)容，也是行政救濟(jì)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(quán)益起到了極大的作用。然而，自該制度實(shí)施以來(lái)，由于歷史條件、現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況等多種因素的制約，盡管經(jīng)過(guò)兩次修改，，但是我國(guó)大陸地區(qū)的行政賠償制度仍有不足，具體表現(xiàn)在歸責(zé)原則、賠償范圍、賠償程序和賠償機(jī)關(guān)方面。本文力圖從我國(guó)目前的實(shí)際情況出發(fā)，在比較大陸與臺(tái)灣相關(guān)制度的基礎(chǔ)上，探討具有可行性的意見(jiàn)，為完善行政賠償制度提供參考。 主要包括以下內(nèi)容： 第一部分，比較大陸與臺(tái)灣的歸責(zé)原則。參照世界各國(guó)通行的歸責(zé)原則，通過(guò)對(duì)大陸現(xiàn)行歸責(zé)原則的分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)單一的歸責(zé)原則引發(fā)了諸多問(wèn)題，而臺(tái)灣的雙重歸責(zé)原則帶來(lái)了啟示，最終明確應(yīng)建立以違法歸責(zé)原則為主的多元化歸責(zé)體系。 第二部分，比較大陸與臺(tái)灣的賠償范圍。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的立法參照日、韓等國(guó)，囊括了公有公共設(shè)施致害引起的賠償。針對(duì)我國(guó)大陸地區(qū)賠償范圍較窄，建議將公有公共設(shè)施、抽象行政行為、裁量性行政行為、內(nèi)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(tái)灣的賠償程序。首先是先行處理程序。臺(tái)灣的“協(xié)議先行”將賠償義務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)與賠償請(qǐng)求人置于同等法律地位，這種行政意識(shí)弱化的方式極大地限制了行政機(jī)關(guān)作出單方?jīng)Q定的可能。本文認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)法律具體規(guī)定賠償機(jī)關(guān)受理申請(qǐng)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(tái)灣增加通過(guò)民事訴訟獲得國(guó)家賠償?shù)姆绞�。最后為追償程序。臺(tái)灣使用的是更為謹(jǐn)慎的“求償”字樣，與臺(tái)灣相比，大陸地區(qū)的追償規(guī)定不允許公務(wù)員提起訴訟，不利于保障公務(wù)員的個(gè)人權(quán)益。建議可借鑒臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的此項(xiàng)規(guī)定。 第四部分，比較大陸與臺(tái)灣的賠償義務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)�？蓞⒄张_(tái)灣的立法規(guī)定，在政府之外，設(shè)立相對(duì)獨(dú)立的賠償委員會(huì)，專(zhuān)門(mén)受理侵權(quán)損害賠償請(qǐng)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(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(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 楊澤延 ,姚輝;美國(guó)國(guó)家賠償制度縱橫[J];比較法研究;1988年03期

2 馬懷德;行政機(jī)關(guān)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(guó)家賠償法》應(yīng)當(dāng)著重把握的若干問(wèn)題[J];法律適用;2011年06期

4 廖海;中外國(guó)家賠償制度之比較[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1996年01期

5 章志遠(yuǎn);我國(guó)行政賠償制度完善之構(gòu)想[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

6 王文惠;簡(jiǎn)論我國(guó)行政賠償?shù)某绦颉孀h國(guó)家賠償難,難在程序不完善[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年05期

7 楊尚東;;怠于履行職責(zé)致害賠償?shù)娜舾蓡?wèn)題討論[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);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(xué);2013年02期

9 張敏敏;喬劍英;;對(duì)我國(guó)國(guó)家賠償范圍的認(rèn)識(shí)與反思[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2013年09期

10 馬懷德;;試述我國(guó)行政賠償制度建立的障礙及對(duì)策[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);1989年01期

本文編號(hào)：2410049