行政法视野下的“黑名单”制度研究

发布时间：2018-04-06 04:11

本文选题：黑名单　切入点：公共警示　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：诚信,是中华民族几千年的优秀传统,市场经济以此为基石,企业也以它为安身立命之本。然而改革开放以来,市场经济不断发展壮大,企业越来越强调利润的攫取,加上政府部门监管缺失,众多企业在追逐利润的过程中放弃了诚信这一传统,不惜违法、违规,严重扰乱了市场秩序,损害了公共利益。由于企业失信已经导致多起影响广泛的产品质量事件,染色馒头事件、塑化剂事件、强生“致癌门”,达芬奇“造假门”等等社会热点事件无一不在刺痛着公众的神经。如何监管这些问题是摆在政府面前的一大难题。为解决市场治理难题,黑名单制度应运而生。黑名单制度作为治理市场失灵问题一项有效的管制工具已经在实践中广泛运用,相比较于传统的行政管理手段,行政机关甚至更加偏爱使用“黑名单”,司法实践中发生的案例也引发了诸多争议。现行法律、法规、规章中并没有关于“黑名单”的直接规定,但散见于各种法律法规之中,本文首先对国内“黑名单”相关的法律法规进行了类型化,分为消费警示的规范渊源、风险警示的规范渊源、功能视野下行政“黑名单”法律规范的类型化三部分;其次分析了“黑名单”行为的正当性基础,即从从法律和国际惯例的角度看“黑名单”制度的正当性、从法律经济学的角度看“黑名单”制度的合理性、从作用功效角度看“黑名单”制度的有效性;在对行政“黑名单”进行定性分析中,确立了惩罚性行政“黑名单”的行政处罚性质,备案性行政“黑名单”的行政备案性质,警示性行政“黑名单”的公共警示性质;最后,探讨了“黑名单”行为的法律控制手段和救济方式,前者包括慎用行政“黑名单”的原则和“黑名单”行为的程序控制,后者包括预防性行政诉讼和媒体侵权赔偿诉讼的增加,实践中运用行政“黑名单”应把握从严慎用原则,运用力求有据可循,有有效的救济手段,避免泛化。
[Abstract]:Honesty and credit is the excellent tradition of the Chinese nation for thousands of years.However, since the reform and opening up, the market economy has continued to develop and grow, enterprises are increasingly emphasizing profit grabbing, coupled with the lack of supervision by government departments, many enterprises have given up the tradition of good faith in the process of chasing profits, and they do not hesitate to break the law and violate the regulations.Seriously disturbed the market order, damaged the public interest.As a result of the enterprise dishonesty has led to a number of widespread product quality events, dyed steamed bread events, plasticizer events, Johnson "carcinogen door", da Vinci "fake door" and other social hot events are stinging public nerves.How to regulate these problems is a big problem in front of the government.In order to solve the problem of market governance, the blacklist system came into being.The blacklist system has been widely used in practice as an effective control tool to deal with the market failure. Compared with the traditional administrative means, the administrative organs even prefer to use the "blacklist".The cases in judicial practice have also caused many controversies.There are no direct provisions on "blacklist" in current laws, regulations and rules, but they are scattered in all kinds of laws and regulations.It is divided into three parts: the normative origin of consumption warning, the normative origin of risk warning, the type of legal norms of administrative "blacklist" from the perspective of function; secondly, the legitimate basis of "blacklist" behavior is analyzed.That is, from the angle of law and international practice, the legitimacy of "blacklist" system, the rationality of "blacklist" system from the angle of law and economics, and the effectiveness of "blacklist" system from the angle of effect;In the qualitative analysis of administrative "blacklist", it establishes the nature of administrative punishment of punitive administrative "blacklist", the nature of administrative record of administrative "blacklist" of record, and the nature of public warning of "blacklist" of warning administration.This paper probes into the legal control means and relief methods of "blacklist" behavior. The former includes the principle of careful use of administrative "blacklist" and the procedural control of "blacklist" behavior. The latter includes the increase of preventive administrative litigation and media tort compensation litigation.In practice, the application of administrative "blacklist" should be based on the principle of strict and cautious use, and should be applied in an effort to have evidence to follow and effective relief means to avoid generalization.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】