浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
 
   2025年5月25日 星期日   首页 |  期刊介绍 |  编委会 |  投稿指南 |  信息服务 |  期刊订阅 |  联系我们 |  预印本过刊 |  浙江省高校学报研究会栏目 |  留言板 |  English Version
浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
在线优先出版论文 最新目录| 下期目录| 过刊浏览| 高级检索 |
行政行为两分法的困境和出路;“一般行政处分”概念的引入和重构
胡建淼 胡茂杰
The Difficulty and Resolution of Dichotomy in Administrative Action: Introduction and Reconstruction of ″Generalized Adjudication″
Hu Jianmiao Hu Maojie

全文: PDF (1796 KB)   RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

世界各国的行政法学体系,尤其是大陆法系,都以行政行为为其理论基石。并且,行政行为都被划分为对应的两大类别,如美国的行政裁决与制定规则,德国的行政处分与法规命令。在中国,从1989年《行政诉讼法》的制定所确立的“抽象行政行为与具体行政行为”,到2014年该法修正后理论界倾向性使用的“行政规定与行政决定”,都未能跳出两分法的窠臼。随着理论的深入和实践的深化,越来越多的学者发现,其实在这两类行为之间存在着中间行为。以德国为代表的大陆法系行政法学通过设置“一般行政处分”概念走出了困境。我国试图通过以“利害关系”代替“法律上的利害关系”,从“相对人”扩大至“相关人”等方法解决矛盾,但这条路并不畅通,而引入一般行政处分概念则有利于发展完善我国行政法学理论体系。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
胡建淼 胡茂杰
Abstract

Administrative action regulated by administrative law is a core concept in the administrative law of every country, especially in the civil law system. Due to the diversity and complexity of administrative actions in application, administrative law circles must use effective classification methods when conducting theoretical research on administrative actions or regulating that by legal norms. Two main aspects account for the necessity of classifying administrative actions. Firstly, in terms of the meaning of theoretical research, there are such enormous differences in characteristics, contents, factors, and effects. Among different types of administrative actions that it is impossible to summarize some valuable and universal rules if the classification of all types of administrative actions from realistic ones is undone. Secondly, in terms of the practice of rule of law, the classification is the presumption of constructing related principles and systems. It is generally acknowledged that there are two basic functions in enforcing administrative power by any administrative agency, the first one is rulemaking, the other being adjudication. Based on this, dichotomy is the most important method in the research on the classification of administrative actions in various countries. However, when countries adopt relevant standards to take a dichotomy for administrative actions, the problem of intermediate-state appears. This kind of intermediate-state actions has both the characteristics of rulemaking and adjudication, and it is not convincing to characterize this kind of intermediate-state actions as either. Until today, this problem has not been effectively solved in our theoretical research and the practice of administrative law. Theoretically, without analysis and conceptual definition of these intermediate-state actions, it will certainly cause confusions and difficulties in the practice of the rule of law, making it impossible to clarify formal elements, illegal consequences and judicial protection and other theoretical and operational issues. In their approach to this intermediate-state problem of countries around the world, the most effective resolution is the mechanism and concept of ″generalized adjudication″ from Germany. It not only settles the intermediate-state problems, but also pushes the administrative adjudication to break through the constraints of the specific counterpart and makes clear the legal attribute of the administrative action that is aimed directly at the object. The influence of the ″generalized adjudication″ from Germany goes further. It also influences many other civil law countries and regions on their administrative law theories and systems of legal norms. Based on the background of administrative law theory and judicial practice in our country, it is feasible to lead in ″generalized adjudication″ to resolve the intermediate-state problems, as there are three reasons: (1) for a long period, the construction and development of the administrative law system in our country has been deeply affected by Germany; (2) the problems we are facing are similar to those of Germany; and (3) the research methods of the two countries are basically the same. For introducing the ″generalized adjudication″ concept into China, we should firstly fix the standards of dichotomy between administrative regulations and administrative adjudications by abolishing the long-standing misunderstanding of the counterpart of administrative adjudication. Secondly, either the standard of ″specific factual relationship″ in Germany or the standard of ″can be applied repeatedly″ in China has some vagueness. Because of that, it ought to adopt the standard of ″can be used to regulate similar affairs″ as the only basis to distinguish administrative regulations and administrative adjudications. This means that the direct effect of administrative adjudication merely acts on the ″affair″ it deals with, but is absolutely ″not″ available for ″the same affairs″ that have already happened or are likely to happen, while the effect of administrative regulation is able to act on the same affairs, this being the essential difference between them. Thirdly, the ″generalized adjudication″ concept needs to be normalized and institutionalized in order to combine with the administrative law system of our country. Only by doing this can we actually resolve the intermediate-state problem on the dichotomy of rulemaking and adjudication.

    
引用本文:   
胡建淼 胡茂杰. 行政行为两分法的困境和出路;“一般行政处分”概念的引入和重构[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2020, 6(6): 45-. Hu Jianmiao Hu Maojie. The Difficulty and Resolution of Dichotomy in Administrative Action: Introduction and Reconstruction of ″Generalized Adjudication″. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2020, 6(6): 45-.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2020.09.013      或     https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/Y2020/V6/I6/45
发表一流的成果,传播一流的发现,提供一流的新知

浙ICP备14002560号-5
版权所有 © 2009 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)    浙ICP备05074421号
地址:杭州市天目山路148号 邮编:310028 电话:0571-88273210 88925616 E-mail:zdxb_w@zju.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn