【作者】 陈伟；

【导师】 张义清；

【作者基本信息】 湘潭大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2013， 硕士

【副题名】以49国宪法为分析样本

【摘要】 政党责任入宪问题不仅是一个价值判断上应不应该的问题，而且更是一个操作技术上可不可行、可不可能以及如何可能的问题。籍由工具理性、价值理性和技术理性三者之间的辩证关系，我们可以清楚地端见，政党责任入宪的工具理性即体现在通过宪法中的责任条款来对政党公权力的运行提供相应的规制手段，并以责任落实的方式来敦促政党遵守这些规定，从而维护宪法的权威，保持政党政治的良性发展；政党责任入宪的价值理性，解决的则是一个入宪本身在目的合理性与正当性上是否能够证成和有意义的问题，同时这种“应然性”判断也涵盖着人们基于特定的国情和体制因素对其所作的价值考量。问题在于，国情和体制因素是否当然地阻却政党责任入宪的可能性及其可行性讨论，其中还存在着一个工具理性和价值理性二者之间的价值取舍和事实判断问题。就此而言，对其技术理性的探究，无疑可以为我们提供一个基于经验、事实以及价值层面的判断标准，并构筑一套具有普适性价值和可资借鉴意义的技术性实施方案。从目前联合国193个成员国公布的宪法文本和规范的具体内容来看，其中完全没有涉及政党责任条款的情况属于少数。考察发现，就入宪的政党责任条款涉及的责任主体、责任形式、追责事由、追责主体等技术性要素也好，还是就政党责任条款出现的宪法章节、政党责任条款构筑的宪法规范类型、政党责任与宪法责任的条款对应关系、政党责任条款构筑的行为——后果规制模式、政党责任之宪法表达的“法律”补充等相关技术性要素的具体特征也罢，国情、体制因素对相关要素的确定及其结合程度的影响是具体而显着的。但是，无论是实行何种政党制度，也无论实行何种宪法监督体制，各国就政党责任条款入宪的在其所相关的某些核心技术性要素以及文本和规范的技术性特征也程度不同地呈现出了某些趋同之处。例如，法人治理、追诉及违宪审查之衔接、政党自由与政党责任之对应、责任主体之兼顾、追责主体之联合、责任强度之递进、追责时间之贯穿、责任形式之多元、追责事由之明确、责任性质之区分、条款配置之统一，等等。经验和事实表明：政党责任条款入宪应首先应当尊重一个国家的体制和国情。其中，如何既能最大限度地契合现代宪法的价值理性，同时又能够有效地防御各种工具理性对其发起的挑战，构筑了各国立宪经验彰显的技术理性。质言之，通过科学而合理的立宪技术推进政党责任条款入宪，无疑有助于树立现代国家的宪法制度自信，也有利于促进现代政党制度的完善和发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 Take the political-party’s liability into the country’s constitution(TPLIC) is notonly a question about value judgments,so we just need to, somehow have to say yesor no, but also take our attitude and answer above the operating techniques, includeviable or not, may or not, and how it might be. Membership by the InstrumentalRationality, The Value Rationality, the Technical Rationality and their relationships,we can see clearly that The Instrumental Rationality of TPLIC is provided someRegulatory instruments, for example the Liability clause that the country’sconstitution had. To this end, every political party should have to comply with all thisprovisions when they exercise their public power. So, the authority of the constitutionhave been protected and the country’s party-politics should be functioning healthy.However, what a point that The Value Rationality of TPLIC have is can we foundsome purpose rationality and purpose legitimacy on TPLIC and how to make it right.Even the answer that people give can not free himself from the Specific NationalConditions and Institutional Factors(NCIF) and always play a major role in. But thequestion is, there is a key issue of value of the trade-offs and factual judgmentbetween The Instrumental Rationality and The Value Rationality cross in the road thatwe say no to the TPLIC, include the discussion of its possibility and feasibility,according to this NCIF. Therefore, the discussion on The Technical Rationality ofTRPPIC can provide us a judgment criterion that based on the level of experience,fact and value and also can plan a technical implementation of the program whichexactly contain universal value and can be learned.Among193United Nations member states’constitution text and its specificcontents, we can see that a country who did not have any liability clause of politicalparty was rarely. According to the content investigate, the technical elements ofTPLIC(such as: the subject of liabilities, the form of liability, the matter of liabilitiesand the handler of liabilities),and the specific characteristics of the relevant technicalelements(such as: the chapter of constitution that the liability clause appeared, thetype of constitutional norms that the liability clause build, the correspondencebetween the responsibility of political parties and the responsibility for constitution,the behavior-consequences of regulation mode that the liability clause build and the“law’s supplement” on constitutional regulation of political-party’s liability had.) areall affected obviously with the NCIF, not only the determination of these elements or characteristics, but also the degree of coalescent between them. However, on the otherhand, we can also found something in common on these Technical-elements orTechnical-characteristics among these countries, no matter what Party-System does ittaken or what Constitutional-Supervision-System does it used. For instance, The linkup between governance of legal person, prosecution and the constitutional review；The correspondence between party-founding freedom and responsibility of politicalparties; Taking all the subjects of liabilities into account; Associate all the handlers ofliabilities; The progressively strength of liabilities; Regulation should have runthrough the hole time where the liability could been found; The form of liabilityshould be pluralism; The matter of liabilities should be clear; The nature of theseliability should be distinguished and be used different; The configuration of the termsshould be unified, and so on.The experience and the fact indicate: what should we do for the TPLIC first isfollow the country’s NCIF. Among this situation, we can also found the TechnicalRationality that so many country has taken on their Constitutional experience ofTPLIC is: how to maximize the agreement with the Value Rationality of modernconstitution, and on the anther hand, to defense the challenge efficaciously that theInstrumental Rationality caused. That is, according to the use of scientific and rationalTechnical-Constitutionalization on TPLIC, the modern country’confidence of systemin constitutional could be established and be encouraged. Also conducive topromoting the improvement and development of the modern political party system.更多还原