【作者】 孙晶；

【导师】 范进学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 本文首先探讨行政程序法的价值、目标模式的概念、内涵与相互关系。认为行政程序法价值是目标模式的终极根据,决定行政程序法目标模式的最终定位;目标模式是一定的立法方法的规则,它取决于目标,服从、服务于价值的实现。通过对行政程序法价值取向的探讨,可以为行政程序立法的目标模式选择提供科学的理论依据和坚实的信念基础。经过辨析,文章认为公正是行政程序法的首要价值,秩序是其基础价值;而效率是行政程序的价值,是行政程序法公正价值的从属价值和检验指标,而不应作为行政程序法的独立价值。指出由于效率是公正的内在要求,因而已没有争论“公正优先”抑或“效率优先”的必要。这也是现实中效率模式论、管理论、效率优先论者不多见的原因。管理论从行政机关的视角出发,将行政过程等同于行政主体行使权力的过程,重点保障行政管理的顺利进行,将行政管理中的行政相对人视为管理客体,轻视甚至漠视行政相对人的合法权利及其权利救济,缺乏对行政权力自身进行监控的法律机制,造成严重的恣意和滥权。控权论从权力制约论出发,重点是规范行政主体的行为,通过一系列监督行政权行使的制度防止其滥用,以保障相对人权益。控权论、平衡论和公共选择理论都强调行政程序法制约行政权力、保障相对人权益的作用,但对现实中的有权无责(义务)、有权利者不负责任的状况却有忽视和“放任”之嫌。对于行政权力划定边界显然是必要的,但是仅仅对权力单方面划定“限制”、“平衡”或“选择”的边界,却忽视了对义务和责任的落实,则产生消极行政、甚至是行政不作为。此问题在当前我国很多行政领域已经显露无疑——普遍违法、法不责众,公共产品提供不足、不当,甚至出现大量公共劣品。控权论和平衡论只给权力划定了一条边界,边界的一侧是不可侵犯的公民权利,而另外一侧还有很大的空间,不侵犯权利,但是也不一定履行责任。本文因此大胆提出全新的目标模式选择——促使行政主体及其工作人员负责,以下简称该观点为“负责论”。负责,既要求行政主体不得侵犯公民权利,又要求行政主体恰当履行职责,在条件允许的范围内尽可能提供更好的行政管理、公共产品;既要求行政主体的行政行为对行政相对人公正,也要求所管理的社会事务的总体处于秩序的状态。公正和秩序这两个基础价值,同时也作为衡量行政程序法的标准,相比公正这个单一的价值标准,秩序弥补了其在宏观层面的缺位,更加直观和易于比较。“负责”的目标模式,要求全过程提示行政主体及其工作人员的责任,通过行政程序立法的一系列程序规定来开展明确、宣示行政主体及其工作人员责任的活动,落实和记录行政行为各个环节的责任人,形成相对人乃至全社会的责任监督、制约、追究机制。相比平衡论“最低限度的公正”,负责论在确认效率是公正内在要求的基础上,设置了另一标准,就是“最低限度的效率”要求下的“客观条件允许的最高公正”。总体而言,负责论给行政主体及其工作人员划定了两条边界,让其只能在两条边界的区域之内做出理性的行政选择。更多还原

【Abstract】 The article firstly discusses the value and target model of administrative procedure law: their concepts, meanings and relations. It considers that, as the ultimate foundation of target model, the value of administrative procedure law determines the ultimate orientation of target model, that as the rule for certain legislation methods, the target model depends on the target, submitting to and serving the realization of the value. The discussion of the value orientation of administrative procedure law may provide a scientific theoretical foundation and a solid belief foundation.On the basis of discrimination, the article thinks that justice is the primary value while order is the basic value of administrative procedure law, that as the value of administrative procedure and the submitting value and test index of the justice value of administrative procedure law, efficiency should not be regarded as the independent value of administrative procedure law. The article also suggests that because efficiency is the internal requirement of justice, there is no need to argue "justice priority" or "efficiency priority". This is the reason that why there are few authors who adhere to efficiency model theory, administration theory and efficiency priority theory.Starting from the viewpoint of administrative organs, administration theory equates administrative process with the process that administrative organs exercise power. Focusing on the successful operation of administration, it regards the private party in administration as administrative object, despises or even disregards the legal right and right relief of the private party, lacks of legal mechanism to supervise the administrative power itself, leading to the serious abuse of power. Power control theory starts from the theory of restriction on powers, focusing on the standardization of administrative subject’s acts. It protects the right of private party with a series of regulations against the abuse of administrative power. Power control theory, balance theory and public choice theory emphasize the effect of administrative procedure law to control administrative power and protect the right of private party, while they seem to neglect or "indulge" the reality that people have power without duty and people with power breach of duty.It is obviously necessary to demarcate the boundary of administrative power. However, only to demarcate the boundaries of limitation, balance and choice while disregard the implementation of duty and responsibility leads to the passive administration or even the administrative omission. This kind of problem has become obvious in the administration of our country, such as the common illegal behaviors, no law being mass, short supply or even of public goods and even the appearance of many sham public goods. Power control theory and balance theory only demarcates one boundary for power. On the one side of it is the inviolable civil rights while on the other there is much room which does not violate civil rights, but also not necessary fulfills responsibility. Therefore, this paper argues a completely new choice of target model—urging the administrative subject and its staff to be responsible. It is called "responsibility theory" hereafter.Responsibility demands that administrative subject can not violate civil rights and that administrative subject perform duty properly, providing as much as possible better administration and public goods. It also demands that the administrative acts of administrative subject be fair to private party and that the whole social affairs it administrates be orderly. The two basic values of justice and order also serve as the standard for administrative procedure law. Compared with the single value standard of justice, order makes up for its vacancy at macro level and is more visual and comparable.The target model of "responsibility" demands that the administrative subject’s responsibility be suggested throughout the process. It carries out activities with a series of procedure stipulates of administrative procedure law to definite and declare the responsibility of administrative subject and its staff, to specify and record the person liable in each link of the administrative act, developing a mechanism of supervision, control and responsibility for private party or even the whole society. Compared with the "minimum justice" of balance theory, responsibility theory suggests another standard on the base of confirming that efficiency is the inherent demand of justice—the "really possible maximum justice" in accordance with the demand of "minimum efficiency".Generally speaking, the responsibility theory demarcates two boundaries for administrative subject and its staff, allowing them to make rational administrative choice only in the area between the two boundaries.更多还原