【作者】 高景芳；

【导师】 俞子清；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 我国的《国家赔偿法》体现了将赔偿制度与补偿制度加以区分的理论,只适用于对行政和司法机关及其工作人员行使职权时的违法行为所造成损害的赔偿,从而形成了国家赔偿与国家补偿两套制度并存的局面。行政补偿作为国家补偿的重要组成部分,在我国已有多年的法律实践。然而,令人遗憾的是,我国行政补偿的实践并没有相应成熟的法律理论支撑,更没有构成一个较为完善的行政补偿法律制度。在新的历史时期,既有的行政补偿制度存在的问题日益凸显,难以适应现代法治建设的发展需要。因此,在我国加强行政补偿的基础理论研究,促进行政补偿制度的改革和完善,有着深刻的理论意义和现实意义。笔者认为,行政补偿是指行政主体基于公共利益的需要,在行政管理活动的过程中合法行使职权的行为以及该行为附随效果,致使公民、法人或其他组织的合法权益遭受特别损失,依公平之原则,对遭此损失的相对人给予补偿的法律制度或行为。行政补偿区别于行政赔偿的主要特征在于其原因行为的合法性。行政补偿制度伴随着财产征用制度应运而生。两者可以视为一个问题的两个方面。从近代到现代,人们的财产权利观念发生了历史性嬗变。公民财产权被摘<WP=4>去了“神圣不可侵犯”的光环,转而强调政府基于公益之需,可以对公民财产权进行“宽容的干预”。现代各国大都透过宪法规范授予政府基于公共利益可以对公民个人财产进行征用(或征收)或限制,前提是必须给以公平补偿。行政补偿就是一种权利保障和利益平衡的法律制度。“特别牺牲理论”系现代各国行政补偿制度理论依据的通说。境外各主要国家或地区行政补偿制度各有其特点,对完善我国的行政补偿制度具有一定的借鉴意义。我国行政补偿产生于革命战争年代,新中国成立以后,与我国整个法治建设的历史发展趋势相一致,经历了一个从初始起步、遭遇挫折到再次复兴的过程。笔者认为,在我国,已经实践多年并走在了理论研究前面的行政补偿制度存在着很多问题,譬如,现行宪法缺乏明确的财产征用补偿条款,使得行政补偿立法缺乏宪法根据;行政补偿制度立法不成体系,缺少成熟的理论支撑;没有统一的《行政补偿法》,单行法律法规规定不周全、不平等、不协调;现有行政补偿立法的规定过于抽象、原则,过于简单、粗疏,缺乏可操作性,难于掌握和实施;行政补偿缺乏程序设置,尤其缺少救济程序保障;补偿范围较窄、标准较低,补偿的随意性较大;补偿的方式有待创新等等。笔者提出的改革和完善我国行政补偿制度的对策是:修改宪法,增加征用补偿的条款,明确行政补偿的原则;建构行政补偿制度的基本体系;完善行政补偿的程序设置;适时制定一部统一的《行政补偿法》。更多还原

【Abstract】 The State Compensation Law of our country, maintaining the distinction between legal or illegal causes of damages, provides compensation only to the damages arising from the illegal acts of the state administrative and judicial institutions as well as their functionaries performing their duties, hence, the coexistence at present of the two different state remedies.The administration recuperation, as the one important component of the state recuperation, has been in actual practice for years; however, this practice is still short of adequate theoretical support, let alone a complete legal system of itself. The problems the present system has are so apparent that it could hardly meet the needs of the state’s effort to build a rule-governed society. Therefore it is of great significance, both theoretically and practically, that basic research be strengthened in this field to promote its reform and perfection. This author maintains that administration recuperation is such a legal system that provides recuperation, under the principle of fairness, to the person, legal person or institutions of other kinds that have suffered particular damages from the legal acts and/or the necessary effect thereof as the result of exercising the public power by the state administrative bodies in the course of administrating state and social affairs to the benefits of the society as the whole. The administration recuperation differentiates itself from other administration reparations in that the course of the damage is a legal act.The administration recuperation as a system came with the system of requisition, and the two can be viewed as the different sides of one thing. Since the modern times, the perception of property rights has gone through a historical change. The shining ring of the “sacred and inviolable private property right” has been removed, and “tolerable intervention” of private properties is permissible when the government thinks it necessary to the public interest. Today many countries in the world grant their <WP=6>governments through the constitution the right to requisite or otherwise impose restrictions on their citizens’ private properties, subject to the necessary fair recuperation. The administration recuperation as a legal system serves to ensure human right protection and balance various interests. Underlying this system is the so-called “special sacrifice theory”(“特别牺牲理论”).The administration recuperation systems as adopted by other countries or regions have shown their own unique features, which are of great referential value to the perfection of our own system.The administration recuperation in our country can be traced back as early as in the era of the Revolutionary War. Since the founding of the new China, the administration recuperation has gone through a process from the initial development to the setback and then the resurrection, corresponding to the same historic rise and fall of the legalization process of this country. The author believes that the present system, the practice of which has far-outpaced its theoretical research, has accumulated heaps of problems after so many years of practice. For example, in the first place, the constitution does not have specific provisions for the requisition of private property, which makes the legislation in this field lack of constitutional support. Secondly, the existing legislation is yet to be completed along with well-established theory at its back. Thirdly, there is no unified Law of Administration Recuperation, nor are the specific regulations and rules in force conclusive in their coverage, with balance and harmonization among themselves. Furthermore, the provisions therein are too general and principle, simple and sketchy for understanding and actual enforcement. There also lack provisions for procedures, especially regarding the procedures for remedies. The damages eligible for recuperation are narrow and insufficient in terms of scope and amount with many uncertainties. The methods of recuperation also need to be innovated.更多还原