我国裁量基准制度的司法审查研究

发布时间：2018-05-14 11:12

本文选题：行政裁量基准 + 司法审查　；参考：《华东师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：行政裁量基准制度是应现实的需要而产生,它的制度功能在于限制裁量权的恣意行使和保障执法统一性等方面。我国裁量基准可以分为技术性裁量基准与政策性裁量基准两类,行政机关对它们的态度有明显的不同,存在这种区分的根本原因在于裁量基准蕴含的裁量性之多少。裁量基准制度在我国的兴起是自发的,是自下而上的,因此在立法层面上的规制会存在一定的缺失,裁量基准制度的施行存在一定的风险。除了依靠行政机关的内部自我监督与规范,公众与舆论的监督,还需要司法权力的控制。因裁量基准的特殊性质与我国司法审查体系的约束,司法权对其的控制往往只是存在于理论层面,实践中多存在于法官的思想中,并通过裁判文书的形式体现出来。文章对相关裁判文书的整理后发现,法院总体上对技术性裁量基准有着较大的回旋余地,对政策性裁量基准则以尊重为主。文中第一章从分析裁量基准制度的制度意义入手,引出了裁量基准制度的三个本质特征。第二章讨论了我国裁量基准制度兴起的过程,并试图对实践中裁量基准制度的类型进行了区分。本章节在论述的同时指出标准的区分因素,这是文章的通篇线索。第三章探讨了裁量基准制定程序的外在要求。裁量基准的制定程序要求较低,不能达到法律制定的程度要求,这也是法院对裁量基准难以进行充分审查的原因之一。第四章在考察我国裁量基准的司法审查实践之前先进行了理论整理,并试图在我国行政诉讼制度下寻找制度空间。第五章从宏观到微观仔细疏理了搜寻到的案例,总结出了我国法院对裁量基准司法审查的大致思路。
[Abstract]:The system of administrative discretion datum comes into being according to the need of reality. Its function lies in restricting the arbitrary exercise of discretion and safeguarding the unity of law enforcement and so on. The standard of discretion in China can be divided into two categories: technical standard and policy standard. There are obvious differences in the attitude of administrative organs towards them. The fundamental reason for this distinction lies in the amount of discretion contained in the standard of discretion. The rise of the discretionary benchmark system in our country is spontaneous and bottom-up, so there will be some defects in the regulation on the legislative level, and there are certain risks in the implementation of the discretionary benchmark system. In addition to relying on the internal self-supervision and standardization of administrative organs, the supervision of the public and public opinion, it also needs the control of judicial power. Because of the special nature of the standard of discretion and the restriction of the judicial review system of our country, the control of the judicial power often exists only in the theoretical level, and in practice, it mostly exists in the thought of the judge, and it is reflected through the form of the judicial document. After sorting out the relevant adjudicative documents, it is found that the court has greater room for manoeuvre on the technical standard of discretion and respect for the standard of the policy discretion on the whole. The first chapter starts with the analysis of the institutional significance of the discretionary benchmark system, leading to the three essential characteristics of the discretionary benchmark system. The second chapter discusses the process of the rise of the discretionary benchmark system in China, and tries to distinguish the types of the discretionary benchmark system in practice. At the same time, this chapter points out the distinguishing factors of the standard, which is the whole clue of the article. The third chapter discusses the external requirements of the discretion benchmarking process. The procedure of making the standard of discretion is low, which can not reach the requirement of law making, which is one of the reasons why it is difficult for the court to make a full review of the standard of discretion. The fourth chapter makes a theoretical arrangement before examining the judicial review practice of our country's discretion benchmark, and tries to find the system space under the administrative litigation system of our country. The fifth chapter carefully dissects the cases from macro to micro, and sums up the general ideas of judicial review of discretion benchmark in Chinese courts.
【学位授予单位】：华东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1;D925.3

【参考文献】