【作者】 丁毅；

【导师】 陈宏光；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 当今法治社会建设如火如荼地进行着,因社会成员的信用而造成的一系列失信问题已经愈发成为影响社会发展的重要因素。运用失信惩戒机制约束和限制失信主体,已经越来越多地规定在法律、法规和部门规范性法律文件中。关于失信惩戒立法的定位问题,鉴于世界上其他国家的立法经验,有以征信市场为基础的促进法模式,也有强调政府监管职能的管理法模式。所以在进行失信惩戒立法的时候,首先面对的问题就是准确把握立法定位的问题。根据其他国家的经验可知,将社会信用立法定位为促进法的前提是国家拥有庞大、成熟的征信机制以及相应健全的法律制度,然而,对比之下,我国现阶段的信用立法依然 ’还在打基础的阶段,征信制度尚不成熟,相关立法也存在大量空白,急需规制的社会信用现状与市场机制的不完善、相关立法的不成熟的矛盾决定了现阶段我国信用立法更加适合选择利用我国现有法律框架的优势对社会信用问题加以规制。因此,在我国现阶段的法治环境下,近两年的信用立法绝大部分是以管理法的身份出现。失信惩戒措施的性质在实践活动中一直是争议的焦点,据此而产生的法律后果完全不同,因此,必须对失信惩戒措施的性质加以准确辨析。当今社会对失信惩戒措施性质存在的学术观点有,行政行为说、行政处罚说、行政强制说、行政指导说。并且还有观点认为失信惩戒的某些措施与行政处罚的“一事不再罚”原则相违背。事实上,从行为的目的上来说,失信惩戒措施具有惩戒性。失信惩戒的目的是通过监管、取消便利、限制财政支持、针对政府采购等特定行业或者项目、任职资格、从事特殊市场交易、授予荣誉和融资信贷、高消费等方式使得失信者寸步难行,本身这些措施在实现有效管理、执行目的之外,就具让失信主体对于其失信行为承担不利后果的目的,从本质上来说,这就是处罚;失信惩戒措施具有强制性。失信惩戒制度的目的就是为了迫使失信主体履行应当履行的义务,部分失信惩戒措施在间接上强制失信主体履行义务,从这个方面说,失信惩戒具有强制性。由于现阶段联合失信惩戒的诸多措施在中央、地方立法上存在缺乏上位法依据的问题,所以在惩戒过程中产生了巨大的争议。我国现阶段的失信惩戒措施最主要的依据即为国务院发布的《关于建立完善守信联合激励和失信联合惩戒制度加快推进社会诚信建设的指导意见》,在此基础之上,部分领域的相关法律对其进行了相应的规定,但同时缺少高阶层的立法为失信惩戒措施提供依据,由此使得社会上对于部分失信惩戒措施的合法性产生争议。由于当今社会是大数据的时代,失信惩戒的基本思路就是利用信息广泛传播的特点对失信主体加以震慑,所以必然产生的问题就是失信主体的隐私权该如何保障的问题。行政机关对失信主体进行失信惩戒所依赖的基础是行政机关掌握了失信主体的相关信息,当失信主体产生了失信行为之后,行政机关利用已掌握的相关信息进行惩戒。这种惩戒措施的“杀伤力”无疑是大的,也是有效的,但极有可能会引发失信主体的权益受到侵犯。因此,行政机关在实施惩戒时,对于失信主体的信息的查询与公布必须遵守关联性原则。行政机关为了履行职责可以查询所有人信息,但是,必须遵守合理行政的原则,尤其要重视行为的关联性。在我国现有的体制下,失信惩戒非常依赖行政规制的方式,所以在立法的时候,必须做好与行政基本法的衔接,如果在立法的时候存在法律冲突的问题,势必对有效推进失信惩戒制度的建设是不利的。随着法治的不断发展,相关的行政基本法也需要进行适当的调整,由于失信惩戒制度必须与《行政处罚法》、《行政许可法》、《行政强制法》做到有效衔接,而又面临着立法中央集权、地方授权的总体立法局面,所以行政基本法的修改应当注重要给地方放权留足立法表述上的空间。当信息主体认为自己的权益受到侵害之时,救济保障不容忽视。首先,需要在立法时对于信息主体的知情权、异议权、消除权;其次,当权益受到侵害时,信息主体可以选择行政诉讼、行政复议的方式请求国家赔偿维护权益。更多还原

【Abstract】 Nowadays,the construction of the rule of law society is in full swing,and a series of problems caused by the credit of the social members have become an important factor affecting the social development.The application of credit punishment mechanism to restrain and limit the subject of discredit has been more and more stipulated in the laws,regulations and normative legal documents of departments.In view of the legislative experience of other countries in the world,there is a promotion law model based on credit market and a management law model that emphasizes the function of government supervision.Therefore,when carrying out the legislation of dishonesty punishment,the first problem is to accurately grasp the enactment of laws.The question of bit.According to the experience of other countries,the premise of positioning social credit legislation as promoting law is that the country has a large,mature credit mechanism and a corresponding sound legal system.However,in contrast,At present,the credit legislation of our country is still in the stage of laying a foundation,the system of credit collection is not mature,there are also a lot of gaps in the relevant legislation,the current situation of social credit and the imperfection of the market mechanism urgently need to be regulated.The immature contradiction of relevant legislation determines that at present our country’s credit legislation is more suitable to make use of the advantages of our existing legal framework to regulate the social credit problem.The nature of the disciplinary measures of breach of trust has always been the focus of controversy in practical activities,and the legal consequences arising therefrom are completely different.Therefore,it is necessary to accurately distinguish and analyze the nature of the disciplinary measures of breach of trust.Nowadays,there are academic views on the nature of disciplinary measures of dishonesty,such as administrative behavior theory,administrative punishment theory,administrative compulsion theory,and administrative guidance theory.There are also views that some measures of dishonest punishment are contrary to the principle of"non-bis in idem"of administrative punishment.In fact,in terms of the purpose of the behavior,the disciplinary measures of breach of faith have disciplinary nature.The purpose of retribution for breach of trust is by means of supervision,cancellation of facilities,restriction of financial support,qualification for employment in specific industries or projects such as government procurement,engaging in special market transactions,granting honours and financing credits,and high consumption,make it difficult for people to break their promises.These measures in order to achieve the effective management and implementation of the purpose of the subject of breach of faith to bear the adverse consequences of their actions,in essence,this is the punishment;Disciplinary measures for breach of trust are mandatory.The purpose of discredit punishment system is to urge the completion of certain statutory or agreed obligations,so as to enable the administrative body to achieve its own regulatory purposes,and some of the dishonest punishment measures are indirect.From this point of view,the punishment of breach of faith is mandatory.Due to the lack of legal basis in the central and local legislation,there is a huge controversy in the disciplinary process.The most important basis of our country’s dishonest punishment measures at the present stage is the guidance opinion on establishing and perfecting the Joint Disciplinary system of keeping Trust and the Joint Disciplinary system of dishonesty and Credit issued by the State Council,and on this basis,The relevant laws in some areas provide the corresponding provisions,but lack of high-level legislation to provide the basis for dishonest punishment measures,which makes the legitimacy of some dishonest disciplinary measures controversial in society.Because the society is big data’s time,the basic idea of discredit punishment is to make use of the characteristics of widespread dissemination of information to deter the subject of breach of faith,so the inevitable problem is how to guarantee the privacy of the subject of breach of trust.The basis on which the administrative organs punish the subject of dishonesty is that the administrative organ has mastered the relevant information of the subject of the breach of trust,and when the subject of the breach of trust produces the act of dishonesty,the administrative organ uses the relevant information that it has mastered to punish.The"killing power"of this kind of disciplinary measure is undoubtedly great and effective,but it may lead to the infringement of the rights and interests of the dishonest subject.As a result,the executive authorities When discipline is carried out,the inquiry and publication of the information of the dishonest subject must abide by the principle of relevance.In order to perform its duties,the administrative organ can inquire all the information,but it must abide by the principle of reasonable administration,and pay special attention to the relevance of behavior.Under the existing system of our country,the punishment for breach of trust depends very much on the way of administrative regulation.Therefore,when legislating,we must do a good job of linking up with the basic administrative law.If there is a problem of conflict of laws when legislating,It is bound to be unfavorable to the effective promotion of the construction of dishonest punishment system.With the continuous development of the rule of law,the relevant administrative basic law also needs to be properly adjusted,because the punishment system for breach of trust must be effectively connected with the Administrative punishment Law,the Administrative Licensing Law,and the Administrative compulsory Law.But also facing the overall legislative situation of centralization of legislation and local authorization,so the amendment of the administrative basic law should pay attention to the ground.The delegation of power leaves enough space for legislative expression.When the information subject thinks that their rights and interests are infringed,relief protection can not be ignored.Firstly,the right to know,the right to dissent and the right to eliminate are needed in the legislation.Secondly,when the rights and interests are infringed,the information subject can choose the administrative litigation,the administrative review way to request the state to compensate and safeguard the rights and interests.更多还原