本文選題：行政自由裁量權(quán) + 選擇權(quán)　； 參考：《中南大學(xué)》2012年博士論文

【摘要】：行政自由裁量權(quán),作為法律授權(quán)范圍內(nèi)自行判斷、自行選擇和自行決定的行政權(quán)力,其行使過程不可避免地隱含著權(quán)力行使者的人性、價值觀及道德選擇向度等等,可以說,它實(shí)質(zhì)上是一種“法治”授權(quán)的“人治”。同時由于其自由性、選擇性、相對性和專斷性的倫理特質(zhì),又可以說它是一種倫理性裁量權(quán)。由于它的“人治”和特權(quán)色彩,自存在的那天起,法律對它的認(rèn)可和限制就一起對立地存在著。對行政自由裁量權(quán)的控制僅立足于行政法學(xué)的和政治學(xué)的視角是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的,它還應(yīng)受到倫理學(xué)的關(guān)注和倫理向度的規(guī)治,這是由其倫理特性和裁量空間的法律盲點(diǎn)所決定的。 行政自由裁量權(quán)存在的正當(dāng)性是對其進(jìn)行倫理規(guī)治研究的前提。沒有“存在”就沒有“規(guī)治”生發(fā)的基礎(chǔ)。人類社會選擇法律來治理人性的弱點(diǎn),同時又由這些有著人性弱點(diǎn)的人們行使自由裁量權(quán)來執(zhí)行法律,如何認(rèn)識和解決這個“二律背反”問題?只有從“亦善亦惡”的人性前提出發(fā)才能得到合理的詮釋。另外,適度的行政自由裁量權(quán)不但滿足了現(xiàn)代服務(wù)行政的需要,體現(xiàn)了正義秩序的價值訴求,而且克服了法治內(nèi)在的不足,補(bǔ)充了法的統(tǒng)治。這些都使其存在得以正當(dāng)。 行政自由裁量權(quán)作為一種倫理性裁量權(quán),其行使的過程,與其說是在法律規(guī)則框架內(nèi)對復(fù)雜的行政事務(wù)采取何種手段、方式和程序的過程,不如說是權(quán)力行使者基于什么樣的信念及價值追求的一種道德選擇過程,因而必然涉及對影響道德選擇的相關(guān)因素,如道德能力、行政信仰和權(quán)力運(yùn)行的場合力等因素的考量,并由此探索行政自由裁量權(quán)在運(yùn)行過程中可能遇到的價值沖突、倫理困境和出現(xiàn)的道德風(fēng)險。 正當(dāng)存在的行政自由裁量權(quán)并不意味著其必然能夠正當(dāng)行使。如何保障行政自由裁量權(quán)在各種價值沖突、倫理沖突和可能出現(xiàn)的倫理困境面前,能夠真正實(shí)現(xiàn)個案正義和實(shí)質(zhì)正義,顯然離不開倫理的支撐和道德的約束。這些倫理的支撐和道德的約束主要是通過一定的倫理原則彰現(xiàn)出來。具體來說,要求行政主體和行政人員遵循公正、理性、誠信、適度和責(zé)任原則。通過倫理原則的建構(gòu),與法律規(guī)則一道形成對行政自由裁量權(quán)規(guī)制的合力,使行政自由裁量權(quán)能在法律框架和道德邊界內(nèi)正當(dāng)行使。 行政自由裁量權(quán)逾越邊界容易異化,其異化所導(dǎo)致的非正義必須加以倫理的矯治。鑒于權(quán)力自身固有的擴(kuò)張性、自腐性以及權(quán)力運(yùn)行環(huán)境的非純潔性,行政自由裁量權(quán)行使中更容易出現(xiàn)張力、異化,甚至獨(dú)斷、專制、暴政等非正義。如何矯治?在分析現(xiàn)有的司法矯治模式的特點(diǎn)和局限的基礎(chǔ)上,提出通過德性培育、責(zé)任救濟(jì)、制度良善、正義環(huán)境營造等機(jī)制和路徑對行政自由裁量權(quán)的“非正義”進(jìn)行倫理的矯正和治理。
[Abstract]:Administrative discretion, as the administrative power to judge, choose and decide on its own within the scope of legal authorization, inevitably implies the human nature, values and the direction of moral choice of the power executor, and so on. It is essentially a kind of "rule of man" authorized by the rule of law. At the same time, because of its freedom, selectivity, relativity and arbitrariness, it is a kind of ethical discretion. Because of its color of "rule by man" and privilege, since the day of its existence, the recognition and restriction of the law have existed in opposition. The control of administrative discretion is far from being based on the perspective of administrative jurisprudence and political science. It should also be concerned by ethics and regulated by ethics, which is determined by its ethical characteristics and legal blind spots of discretion space. The legitimacy of the existence of administrative discretion is the premise of ethical regulation. There is no basis for the birth of hair without existence. Human society chooses the law to deal with the weakness of human nature, and at the same time, the people who have the weakness of human nature exercise their discretion to enforce the law. How to understand and solve the problem of "two laws against"? Only from the human premise of "also good and evil" can we get a reasonable interpretation. In addition, the moderate administrative discretion not only meets the needs of modern service administration, but also embodies the value demand of the justice order, and overcomes the inherent deficiency of the rule of law and complements the rule of law. All this justifies its existence. As a kind of ethical discretion, the process of exercising administrative discretion is not so much a process of what means, ways and procedures to take to complex administrative affairs within the framework of legal rules. Rather, it is a process of moral choice based on what kind of belief and value pursuit the power exercisers based on, so it is necessary to consider the relevant factors that affect the moral choice, such as moral ability, administrative belief and the power of the situation in which the power operates, and so on. It also explores the value conflicts, ethical dilemmas and moral risks that the administrative discretion may encounter in the course of operation. The existence of the administrative discretion does not necessarily mean that it can be properly exercised. How to guarantee administrative discretion in the face of various value conflicts, ethical conflicts and possible ethical dilemmas, can truly achieve case justice and substantive justice, obviously can not do without the support of ethics and moral constraints. These ethical support and moral constraints are mainly revealed through certain ethical principles. Specifically, administrative subjects and administrators are required to follow the principles of justice, rationality, honesty, moderation and responsibility. Through the construction of ethical principles, the administrative discretion can be properly exercised within the legal framework and the moral boundary through the construction of the ethical principles and the formation of the resultant force in the regulation of the administrative discretion together with the legal rules. Administrative discretion is easily alienated beyond the boundary, and the injustice caused by its alienation must be corrected by ethics. In view of the inherent expansibility of power, self-corruption and non-purity of power environment, the exercise of administrative discretion is more likely to appear tension, alienation, or even arbitrary, autocratic, tyranny and other injustice. How to correct? On the basis of analyzing the characteristics and limitations of the existing judicial correction model, the author puts forward that, through virtue cultivation, responsibility relief and good system, The mechanism and path of creating a just environment are ethical correction and governance of the "injustice" of the administrative discretion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D035;B82-051

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 龍興海;確立行政倫理的依據(jù)[J];道德與文明;2004年05期

2 呂耀懷;;“慎”的兩個維度[J];道德與文明;2006年03期

3 高國希;;德性的結(jié)構(gòu)[J];道德與文明;2008年03期

4 王諾;讀哈佛[J];讀書;2000年12期

5 王錫鋅;行政程序理性原則論要[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2000年04期

6 徐國棟;中世紀(jì)法學(xué)家對誠信問題的研究[J];法學(xué);2004年06期

7 秦國榮;法治社會中法律的局限性及其矯正[J];法學(xué);2005年03期

8 肖群忠;人性與道德關(guān)系新探[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2001年05期

9 周成泓;;規(guī)則、原則、程序——對法律原則的一個詮釋[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年03期

10 賈敬華;;司法自由裁量權(quán)的現(xiàn)實(shí)分析[J];河北法學(xué);2006年04期

，

本文編號：1792332