本文選題：宏觀調(diào)控行為　切入點(diǎn)：宏觀調(diào)控行為效力　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：宏觀調(diào)控行為效力理論研究具有重要的理論與實(shí)踐價(jià)值。宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力是宏觀調(diào)控行為的生命線,涉及宏觀調(diào)控行為的成立、實(shí)施、可訴性等多方面問題,對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力進(jìn)行研究不僅有助于加深對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為相關(guān)范疇的理解,更有利于實(shí)現(xiàn)宏觀調(diào)控的法治化。國(guó)際金融危機(jī)的再次發(fā)生以及國(guó)內(nèi)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)在調(diào)控中波動(dòng)跳彈等社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實(shí)背景,要求提高宏觀調(diào)控行為的有效性,盡快完善宏觀調(diào)控行為效力實(shí)現(xiàn)機(jī)制。加強(qiáng)宏觀調(diào)控行為效力理論的研究,是實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)的必要條件。目前學(xué)界有關(guān)宏觀調(diào)控行為效力的研究匱乏且明顯滯后,表明就此進(jìn)行專項(xiàng)研究的迫切性。 本文著眼于基礎(chǔ)性和系統(tǒng)性,就宏觀調(diào)控行為效力研究設(shè)定的基本思路是,在界定宏觀調(diào)控行為的基礎(chǔ)上，對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力進(jìn)行延展性研究,明確宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力基礎(chǔ)、效力內(nèi)容、效力范圍、效力形態(tài)以及可訴性問題,以期形成對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為效力問題相對(duì)完整的認(rèn)知。 對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為效力的研究以宏觀調(diào)控行為的正確界定為前提。學(xué)界對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為的模糊認(rèn)知,諸如將宏觀調(diào)控行為與宏觀調(diào)控利宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)村I混同，直接導(dǎo)致了對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為性質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí)不清,造成對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控行為的國(guó)家行為、行政行為、抽象行政行為、決策行為等多種定性。實(shí)際上作為宏觀調(diào)控法的重要范疇,宏觀調(diào)控行為是以宏觀調(diào)控為意思表示的單方法律行為。它是宏觀調(diào)控所決之“策”,是連接宏觀調(diào)控決策階段與宏觀調(diào)控執(zhí)行階段的紐帶。所以宏觀調(diào)控行為的直接行為對(duì)象是宏觀調(diào)控執(zhí)行主體,宏觀調(diào)控受體只有在宏觀調(diào)控行為以法律形式做出時(shí)才是宏觀調(diào)控行為的直接行為對(duì)象。宏觀調(diào)控行為只是國(guó)家宏觀調(diào)控活動(dòng)的重要組成部分,國(guó)家對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)的運(yùn)用行為也并不都表現(xiàn)為宏觀調(diào)控行為。 宏觀調(diào)控的正當(dāng)性與必要性及其現(xiàn)代性和公共物品屬性解釋了宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)作為一種獨(dú)立的“權(quán)力”存在的內(nèi)在合理性與外在合理性。法律對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控、宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)以及宏觀調(diào)控主體具體授權(quán)的不同層面的規(guī)定則承認(rèn)了宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)源的合法性。宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)源的合理性與宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)源的合法性共同奠定了宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力基礎(chǔ),并進(jìn)而決定了宏觀調(diào)控行為效力的特定性。即以公法行為為效力載體,以宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)為效力來源的宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力不同于一般的法律效力、民事法律行為的效力、行政行為的效力，而在效力內(nèi)容、效力范圍、效力形態(tài)等多方面都呈現(xiàn)出自身的特殊性。 宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力內(nèi)容為本文所重點(diǎn)關(guān)注。作為公法行為,宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力內(nèi)容與行政行為類似,但不包括執(zhí)行力。且二者在公定力、確定力和拘束力方面的具體表觀也不一致。首先,追求實(shí)質(zhì)公平、利共贏,以國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)為直接行為對(duì)象的宏觀調(diào)控行為不會(huì)造成公權(quán)對(duì)么權(quán)的損害。所以不同于采取有限公定力說的行政行為,宏觀調(diào)控行為的公定力具有完全性。其次,由于宏觀調(diào)控行為涉及和利益更為重大、調(diào)控的對(duì)象更具不確定性，它的形式確定力比行政行為的更強(qiáng)，而實(shí)質(zhì)確定力則弱一些。再次,學(xué)界對(duì)執(zhí)行力的過度關(guān)注導(dǎo)致執(zhí)行力的內(nèi)涵外延不斷擴(kuò)大,拘束力內(nèi)容被架空。實(shí)質(zhì)上,執(zhí)行力是保障行為內(nèi)容得到遵守的力,其重點(diǎn)在于“保障”而非“遵守”。強(qiáng)調(diào)行為對(duì)象遵行為內(nèi)容是拘束力的任務(wù),就像司法判決的拘束力也體現(xiàn)為對(duì)法院以后判決的準(zhǔn)繩效力一樣，自行執(zhí)行為更多體現(xiàn)的是拘束力的作用效果。因此宏觀調(diào)控行為要求相應(yīng)的國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)主體遵守宏觀調(diào)控法，履行宏觀調(diào)控行為設(shè)定的各項(xiàng)任務(wù)與職責(zé),是宏觀調(diào)控行為拘束力的體現(xiàn)。執(zhí)行力“保障”特點(diǎn)要求執(zhí)行力必須以強(qiáng)制性為特征，并且這種“保障”的力因可以從其他途徑獲得而不被所有的行為具有,內(nèi)部行政行為和抽象行政行為等內(nèi)部規(guī)范即是如此。所以宏觀調(diào)控行為作為內(nèi)在規(guī)范本質(zhì)上不具有執(zhí)行力。 宏觀調(diào)控行為的效力范圍根據(jù)行為手段的不同而呈現(xiàn)出不同特點(diǎn)。總體上看，它在時(shí)間效力上生效更及時(shí)，，在空間效力范圍更廣，管轄權(quán)沖突和區(qū)際沖突更明顯，在對(duì)人效力上更強(qiáng)角色定位。宏觀調(diào)控行為具有完全的公定力,其成立要件與生效要件相同,不存在效力不發(fā)生的問題,因而宏觀凋控行為不存在無效的效力形態(tài)。宏觀調(diào)控行為內(nèi)在的復(fù)雜特征，本質(zhì)上的內(nèi)部規(guī)范性質(zhì)決定宏觀調(diào)控行為不具有可訴性，只有宏觀調(diào)控主體才能決定宏觀調(diào)控行為的失效。但宏觀調(diào)控行為的不可訴并不等于宏觀調(diào)控法的不可訴。宏觀調(diào)控法可以通過規(guī)范宏觀調(diào)控行為的構(gòu)成要件來實(shí)現(xiàn)宏觀調(diào)控的法治化。即法院可以通過判斷宏觀高調(diào)控行為的主體是否合格、行為表現(xiàn)是否規(guī)范、決策程序是否合法等標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來決定行為是否構(gòu)成宏觀調(diào)控行為,從而進(jìn)一步影響宏觀調(diào)控行為主體的行為效力。而對(duì)于同樣是對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)運(yùn)用的宏觀調(diào)控執(zhí)行行為則可以根據(jù)其不同性質(zhì),分別由行政法、民法、刑法等法律予以規(guī)范。從而形成對(duì)宏觀調(diào)控權(quán)運(yùn)用的全面法律規(guī)制，實(shí)現(xiàn)宏觀調(diào)控法治化。
[Abstract]:It has important theoretical and practical value of theoretical research on the validity of macro-control action. The validity of macro-control action is the lifeline of the macro-control behavior, set up, involving the macro-control behavior, justiciability and so on, to study on the effect of macro-control behavior not only helps to deepen the understanding of the category of macro-control behavior that is more conducive to the realization of the macro-control. The international financial crisis happening again and the domestic real estate market fluctuations in the regulation of the social and economic background liking, requirements to improve the effectiveness of macro-control behavior, improve macro-control effect realization mechanism. As soon as possible to strengthen macro-control behavior on the validity of the theory, is a necessary condition to achieve this objective. The present research on macro-control action validity is lack and lag. This special research shows that the forced Tangency.
This paper focuses on the basic and systematic, the macro-control behavior effect the basic thought of setting is based on defining the macro-control behavior, ductility on the validity of macro-control action, effective foundation, clear macro-control action validity content, scope of validity, validity form and actionable. In order to form a relatively complete knowledge of macro-control action validity.
Research on the validity of macro-control action to macro-control behavior is the premise of the correct definition of academia. Fuzzy knowledge of macro-control action, such as macro-control behavior and macro-control and the macro-control power village I confusion, led directly to the understanding of the nature of the macro-control behavior is not clear, cause behavior, national macro-control behavior administrative behavior, abstract administrative behavior, decision-making behavior and other qualitative. In fact, as an important category of macro-control law, macro-control is to macro-control for unilateral legal acts of meaning. It is determined by the macro-control policy, is connected with the macro-control decision-making stage and macro-control implementation stage so the link. The direct object of behavior of the macro-control action is the macro-control executive body, macro-control macro-control action made only in the receptor in the form of law is the macro-control behavior The behavior of macro regulation is only an important part of the national macro regulation and control activities. The state's application of macro control right is not all about macro control behavior.
The macro-control of the legitimacy and necessity of modernity and the attribute of public goods explains the macro-control power as an independent "power" the inherent rationality and external rationality. The law of macro-control, macro-control power and regulation regulation subject specific authorization is not at the same level, recognize the legitimacy of the macro-control power source. The rationality and legitimacy of the macro-control power source of the macro-control power source together laid the foundation of validity of macro-control action, and then determine the specific validity of macro-control action. The behavior of public law for the effect of carrier effect with the macro-control power as the source of the validity of macro-control action is different from the general the legal effect of civil legal law, the validity of administrative act, in effect, scope of validity, validity form and other aspects has its own particularity.
The content of the validity of macro-control action is the focus of this paper. As the content of the validity of law, administrative action and macro-control behavior similar to, but not including the execution. And the two in the de facto force, determine the specific force and binding force are not consistent. First of all, the pursuit of substantive justice, benefit and win-win. The state organ for the purpose of macro-control will not directly cause public behavior object damage to the private right. It is different from the administrative actions of the limited determination theory, the macro-control behavior of the public force is complete. Secondly, due to the macro-control behavior and interests is more important, the object of regulation more uncertainty, it determine the form of force is stronger than the administrative action and determine the force is weak. The essence of academic circles again, excessive focus on the execution of the resulting connotation execution continues to expand, the binding force is essentially empty frame. That execution is the guarantee behavior content being observed, with its emphasis on "security" rather than "obey". Emphasize the content object behavior is the binding behavior compliance task, the binding force as judicial judgment also manifested the criterion validity judgment of the court after the same, the effect of self implementation is more reflected. Force. The macro-control Act requires corresponding state organs to obey macro-control law, fulfill all the tasks and responsibilities set the macro-control behavior, is the embodiment of the macro-control behavior binding force. The execution of the "security" characteristic requirements of execution must be characterized by mandatory, and the "security" power from the other access without being with all behaviors, internal and abstract administrative acts such as internal standard is. So macro-control action as an internal standard in essence It does not have the power of execution.
瀹忚璋冩帶琛屼負(fù)鐨勬晥鍔涜寖鍥存牴鎹涓烘墜孌電殑涓嶅悓鑰屽憟鐜板嚭涓嶅悓鐗圭偣.鎬諱綋涓婄湅,瀹冨湪鏃墮棿鏁堝姏涓婄敓鏁堟洿鍙?qiáng)鏃?鍦ㄧ┖闂存晥鍔涜寖鍥存洿騫

本文編號(hào)：1596010