本文選題：行政問責 + 領導責任　； 參考：《南京大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：行政問責在我國已經(jīng)不是一個新鮮概念,領導人作為行政問責主要對象,也是社會公眾最為關注的對象,因此有必要弄清我國行政問責實踐中對領導的問責情況,從領導責任入手可以涉及到行政問責的各個要素,把握領導責任追究的現(xiàn)實情況。緒論部分闡述了選題的原因、意義以及學界研究現(xiàn)狀。指出行政問責在我國被廣泛使用的現(xiàn)實情況以及學界對其的研究熱情,學界對領導責任的研究還十分有限,對于一些核心問題,還沒有清晰的回答。正文分為四個部分:第一部分是對領導責任的內(nèi)涵、特點與理論、現(xiàn)實基礎的論述。對領導責任的概念進行梳理,分清第一性的領導責任和第二性的領導責任,明確本文所指領導責任是第二性的責任�？偨Y(jié)領導責任的基本特性,指出領導責任是一種內(nèi)部責任,既有直接責任也有間接責任,是個人責任而非集體責任,并且因其社會回應功能而具有政治責任色彩。其后對追究領導責任的原因進行分析,指出科層制理論、行政倫理理論和角色理論是領導責任追究的理據(jù)所在,我國之所以如此熱衷追究領導責任的現(xiàn)實背景是將領導責任追究作為獲取合法性的手段,并且以此為契機構(gòu)建一種新型的負責任的行政文化。第二部分是對領導責任追究實踐進行考察,發(fā)現(xiàn)問題。首先以實踐中的重大事故為例,對這些事故調(diào)查報告中涉及到的領導進行分析,了解我國領導責任追究的總體概況和特點,指出在我國領導責任追究實踐中存在三個難點:領導人在行政層級中的身份相對性導致的身份雙重性、如何平衡問責的社會回應功能和責任追究的合理科學以及間接責任認定困難。然后分析了實踐中出現(xiàn)的四個問題:同類事故問責的領導級別不同、追責方式使用混亂、回應式問責、被追責領導復出。由實踐中的問題發(fā)問這種實踐中的追責亂象是否與我國的制度規(guī)范有關。第三部分考察我國有關領導責任追究的制度規(guī)范,分析其是否導致了實踐中的問責亂象。首先從整體上把握現(xiàn)有的制度文本形式,指出現(xiàn)有規(guī)范設置的責任追究事由繁多,在責任追究中有對過錯的考量,對結(jié)果原則單獨適用有所限制。同時,這些制度規(guī)范還存在追責情形模糊不清、追責程序不完善、歸責原則不清晰等問題,導致了實踐中在尋求制度依據(jù)時無所適從,隨意問責。第四部分在前文的基礎上提出對完善領導責任追究的思考。首先是完善制度規(guī)范,通過分散式立法方式補足現(xiàn)有的制度規(guī)范中存在的漏洞,并且地方規(guī)范要進行梳理,對違反上位法的內(nèi)容應及時清理。其次是在領導責任追究中要堅持依法追責、平等原則、比例原則和公開原則。最后,要形成以過錯責任為核心的歸責體系,保證責任追究要實現(xiàn)過錯與結(jié)果相適應。結(jié)語部分重申了領導責任研究的重要性及涉及到的核心問題,指出如何保證領導責任追究的科學性,如何完善相關立法等問題還有很大的研究空間。
[Abstract]:Administrative accountability is not a new concept in our country. As the main object of administrative accountability, leaders are the most concerned objects of the public. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the accountability of the leadership in the practice of administrative accountability in our country. Starting with the responsibility of leadership, we can involve all the elements of administrative accountability and grasp the current of the accountability of leadership. The introduction part expounds the reasons for the topic, the significance and the research status of the academic circles. It points out the fact that the administrative accountability is widely used in our country and the enthusiasm of the academic circles on it, the research on the leadership responsibility in the academic circles is very limited, and there are no clear answers to some core issues. The main body is divided into four parts: the first part It is a discussion of the connotation, the characteristics and the theory and the realistic basis of the leadership responsibility, combing the concept of leadership responsibility, sorting out the leadership responsibility of the first nature and the leadership responsibility of the second sex, and making clear that the responsibility of the leadership is the second responsibility. The responsibility also has the indirect responsibility, it is personal responsibility rather than collective responsibility, and has the political responsibility color because of its social response function. Then it analyzes the reasons for the accountability of leadership, points out the theory of bureaucracy, the administrative ethics theory and the role theory is the reason for the investigation of leadership responsibility. The realistic background of guiding responsibility is to take the leadership accountability as a means of obtaining legitimacy, and to build a new and responsible administrative culture as a turning point. The second part is the investigation of the practice of leading responsibility investigation and the discovery of the problems. First, the major accidents in practice are taken as an example, and the leaders involved in the investigation report of these accidents are involved. Through the analysis of the general situation and characteristics of the leadership accountability investigation in China, it points out that there are three difficulties in the practice of leading responsibility investigation in China: the identity duality caused by the identity of leaders in the administrative level, how to balance the social response function of the accountability and the reasonable science of accountability and the identification of the indirect responsibility. It is difficult. Then it analyzes four problems in practice: the leadership level of the same kind of accident is different, the way of accountability is used in confusion, the response type of accountability, the responsible leadership is returned. The question of the practice is asked whether this practice is related to the regulations of our country. The third part examines the investigation of leadership responsibility in our country. The system norms, the analysis of whether it leads to the problem of accountability in practice. First, the overall grasp of the existing system text form, refers to the emergence of a standard setting of the responsibility of various reasons, in the accountability of the fault of the consideration, the results of the principle of individual application limits. At the same time, these system norms still have a blur of responsibility. The fourth part, on the basis of the previous article, puts forward the thinking of improving the accountability of the leadership on the basis of the previous article. The first is to improve the system norms and complement the existing system norms through the decentralized legislative mode. Loopholes, and local norms should be combed, the content of violation of the upper law should be cleaned up in time. Secondly, in the investigation of leadership responsibility, we should adhere to the responsibility of law, the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality and the principle of public. Finally, we should form the system of liability with the responsibility of fault as the core, and ensure that the investigation of responsibility should be adapted to the fault and the result. It reiterates the importance of the research on leadership responsibility and the core issues involved, and points out that there is still a lot of research space on how to guarantee the scientific nature of the accountability of leadership and how to improve the relevant legislation.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D262.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 徐國利;;論行政問責的責任與歸責原則[J];上海行政學院學報;2017年01期

2 高恩新;;特大生產(chǎn)安全事故行政問責“分水嶺”效應:基于問責立方的分析[J];南京社會科學;2016年03期

3 司林波;金裕景;孟衛(wèi)東;;韓國行政問責制的實踐及啟示[J];行政科學論壇;2016年01期

4 周海源;;行政問責對象范圍的界定——從行政義務角度切入[J];廣西大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2015年01期

5 施雪華;劉耀東;;西方發(fā)達國家行政問責制度比較研究[J];理論研究;2014年06期

6 林鴻潮;;公共危機管理問責制中的歸責原則[J];中國法學;2014年04期

7 李酣;馬穎;;過度問責與過度規(guī)制——中國質(zhì)量安全規(guī)制的一個悖論[J];江海學刊;2013年05期

8 張創(chuàng)新;韓艷麗;;我國行政領導干部問責層級的實證研究[J];吉林大學社會科學學報;2013年03期

9 余凌云;;對我國行政問責制度之省思[J];法商研究;2013年03期

10 辛慶玲;;論行政首長問責的歸責原則[J];青海師范大學民族師范學院學報;2012年02期

相關博士學位論文 前4條

1 段振東;行政同體問責制研究[D];吉林大學;2014年

2 谷志軍;決策問責及其體系構(gòu)建研究[D];浙江大學;2014年

3 鄭華卿;中國突發(fā)事件行政問責功能異化研究[D];華中科技大學;2011年

4 魏云;壓力型體制下的行政問責模式研究[D];復旦大學;2011年

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 曹政云;行政問責程序法律規(guī)范研究[D];中國政法大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1965934