【摘要】：法律的基本作用之一乃是使人類為數(shù)眾多、種類紛繁、各不相同的行為與關(guān)系達致某種合理程度的秩序，并頒布一些適用于某些應(yīng)予以限制的行為或禁止性行為的行為規(guī)則或行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。為了完成這一任務(wù)，法律制度就必須形成一些有助于對社會生活中多種多樣的現(xiàn)象與事件進行分類的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這樣就為調(diào)整或處理相同或基本相似的現(xiàn)象奠定了基礎(chǔ)。因此，法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可以被視為是用來以一種簡略的方式識別抽象法律規(guī)范所指向的具體對象的工具。而針對行政訴訟被告出現(xiàn)的這種法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)被稱之為“行政訴訟被告確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”，其存在的主旨是識別出適格的行政案件的被告。 我國現(xiàn)行的行政訴訟被告的確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是“誰主體，誰被告”，就是“誰是行政主體，誰是被告”。這是以行政主體作為判定適格被告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，是行政主體的肯定可以是行政訴訟被告，反之，不是行政主體的一定不是行政訴訟的被告。然而，長期以來，以這樣的行政主體決定行政案件被告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，雖然在一定時期對于行政訴訟制度的發(fā)展有一定的作用，但是隨著公共服務(wù)理念的深入，隨著公共行政的發(fā)展，大量的行使公共職能的組織出現(xiàn)，單純使用“行政主體”作為決定行政訴訟被告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)已經(jīng)不能適應(yīng)社會的發(fā)展的需要，甚至于成為了行政訴訟制度健康發(fā)展的阻礙�；诖耍疚脑谕ㄟ^對行政訴訟被告確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的基本理論以及現(xiàn)有“誰主體，誰被告”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)存在的弊端的具體論述后，提出以“誰行為，誰被告”為新的確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。并在通過對域外相關(guān)制度的借鑒后，認(rèn)為“誰行為，誰被告”中的“行為”不應(yīng)是“行政行為”，而是只要是具有社公共管理職能的組織作出的行為即可以，這類似于英國司法審查中只要是具有“公共職能行為”即可以。 近些年，對于行政訴訟被告確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重新定位的理論探討逐漸增多，其中多數(shù)人認(rèn)為應(yīng)以“誰行為，誰被告”作為新的確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�！罢l行為，誰被告”作為行政訴訟被告的確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，，不再需要去確認(rèn)實施者背后的行政主體。這樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)才是真正意義上的行政訴訟被告的確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，作為訴訟程序的訴訟主體與實體意義上的行政主體相分離，獲得了真正的程序主體應(yīng)有的價值。
[Abstract]:One of the basic functions of the law is to make human beings numerous and diverse, and to achieve a certain degree of reasonable order in their different behaviors and relationships. And promulgates rules of conduct or standards of conduct applicable to certain acts that should be restricted or prohibited. In order to accomplish this task, the legal system must form some legal standards which can help to classify the various phenomena and events in social life. This lays the foundation for adjusting or dealing with the same or basically similar phenomena. Therefore, legal standards can be regarded as tools for identifying concrete objects pointed to by abstract legal norms in a concise manner. In view of the appearance of defendant in administrative litigation, this legal standard is called "defendant confirmation Standard in Administrative Litigation", and the purpose of its existence is to identify defendant which is suitable for administrative cases. The confirmation standard of defendant in administrative litigation in our country is "who is the main body and who is defendant", that is, "who is the administrative subject and who is defendant". This is the administrative subject as the appropriate criteria for defendant, is the administrative subject of the affirmation can be defendant administrative proceedings, on the other hand, not administrative subjects must not be defendant administrative proceedings. However, for a long time, with such administrative subjects to determine the administrative case defendant's standard, although in a certain period of time for the development of the administrative litigation system, but with the deepening of the concept of public service, with the development of public administration, A large number of organizations exercising public functions appear, and the simple use of "administrative subject" as the standard for determining administrative litigation defendant can no longer meet the needs of the development of society, and even has become a hindrance to the healthy development of administrative litigation system. Based on this, this paper puts forward "who acts, who defendant" as the new confirmation standard after discussing the basic theory of the confirmation standard of defendant in administrative litigation and the disadvantages of the existing standard of "who is the subject and who defendant". And after drawing lessons from the relevant extraterritorial system, the author thinks that the "behavior" in "who acts, who defendant" should not be "administrative acts", but as long as they are acts made by organizations that have the function of public administration of cooperatives. This is similar to the British judicial review as long as there is a "public functional conduct" can be. In recent years, the theoretical discussion on the reorientation of the confirmation standard of defendant in administrative litigation has gradually increased, and most of them think that "who acts and who defendant" should be taken as the new confirmation standard. "who acts, who defendant" as the confirmation standard of defendant in administrative litigation, no longer need to confirm the administrative subject behind the implementers. This standard is the confirmation standard of defendant in the real sense of administrative litigation. As the litigation subject of the litigation procedure is separated from the administrative subject in the substantive sense, the real procedural subject has gained the value that the real procedural subject should have.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D925.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 章劍生;;反思與超越:中國行政主體理論批判[J];北方法學(xué);2008年06期

2 呂艷輝;;高等學(xué)�！胺煞ㄒ�(guī)授權(quán)組織”定位之理論檢視——兼論我國行政主體理論的改造[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年01期

3 沈巋;重構(gòu)行政主體范式的嘗試[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2000年06期

4 楊小軍;行政被告資格辨析[J];法商研究;2003年06期

5 余凌云;;行政主體理論之變革[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年08期

6 石佑啟;論公共行政之發(fā)展與行政主體多元化[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年04期

7 史修金;;我國行政訴訟被告資格之反思[J];法制與社會;2007年12期

8 宋雅芳;;論行政訴訟被告資格范式的重構(gòu)[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年04期

9 王太高;;司法主導(dǎo)下的中國行政訴訟法制發(fā)展:回顧與思考[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2008年05期

10 李榮珍;孫嬌;;我國行政訴訟被告資格確認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重構(gòu)[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2010年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王彥;行政訴訟當(dāng)事人研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 董忠義;我國行政訴訟被告資格認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2009年

本文編號：2450966