论行政自由裁量权的伦理规治

发布时间：2018-04-23 14:23

本文选题：行政自由裁量权 + 选择权　；参考：《中南大学》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：行政自由裁量权,作为法律授权范围内自行判断、自行选择和自行决定的行政权力,其行使过程不可避免地隐含着权力行使者的人性、价值观及道德选择向度等等,可以说,它实质上是一种“法治”授权的“人治”。同时由于其自由性、选择性、相对性和专断性的伦理特质,又可以说它是一种伦理性裁量权。由于它的“人治”和特权色彩,自存在的那天起,法律对它的认可和限制就一起对立地存在着。对行政自由裁量权的控制仅立足于行政法学的和政治学的视角是远远不够的,它还应受到伦理学的关注和伦理向度的规治,这是由其伦理特性和裁量空间的法律盲点所决定的。行政自由裁量权存在的正当性是对其进行伦理规治研究的前提。没有“存在”就没有“规治”生发的基础。人类社会选择法律来治理人性的弱点,同时又由这些有着人性弱点的人们行使自由裁量权来执行法律,如何认识和解决这个“二律背反”问题?只有从“亦善亦恶”的人性前提出发才能得到合理的诠释。另外,适度的行政自由裁量权不但满足了现代服务行政的需要,体现了正义秩序的价值诉求,而且克服了法治内在的不足,补充了法的统治。这些都使其存在得以正当。行政自由裁量权作为一种伦理性裁量权,其行使的过程,与其说是在法律规则框架内对复杂的行政事务采取何种手段、方式和程序的过程,不如说是权力行使者基于什么样的信念及价值追求的一种道德选择过程,因而必然涉及对影响道德选择的相关因素,如道德能力、行政信仰和权力运行的场合力等因素的考量,并由此探索行政自由裁量权在运行过程中可能遇到的价值冲突、伦理困境和出现的道德风险。正当存在的行政自由裁量权并不意味着其必然能够正当行使。如何保障行政自由裁量权在各种价值冲突、伦理冲突和可能出现的伦理困境面前,能够真正实现个案正义和实质正义,显然离不开伦理的支撑和道德的约束。这些伦理的支撑和道德的约束主要是通过一定的伦理原则彰现出来。具体来说,要求行政主体和行政人员遵循公正、理性、诚信、适度和责任原则。通过伦理原则的建构,与法律规则一道形成对行政自由裁量权规制的合力,使行政自由裁量权能在法律框架和道德边界内正当行使。行政自由裁量权逾越边界容易异化,其异化所导致的非正义必须加以伦理的矫治。鉴于权力自身固有的扩张性、自腐性以及权力运行环境的非纯洁性,行政自由裁量权行使中更容易出现张力、异化,甚至独断、专制、暴政等非正义。如何矫治?在分析现有的司法矫治模式的特点和局限的基础上,提出通过德性培育、责任救济、制度良善、正义环境营造等机制和路径对行政自由裁量权的“非正义”进行伦理的矫正和治理。
[Abstract]:Administrative discretion, as the administrative power to judge, choose and decide on its own within the scope of legal authorization, inevitably implies the human nature, values and the direction of moral choice of the power executor, and so on. It is essentially a kind of "rule of man" authorized by the rule of law. At the same time, because of its freedom, selectivity, relativity and arbitrariness, it is a kind of ethical discretion. Because of its color of "rule by man" and privilege, since the day of its existence, the recognition and restriction of the law have existed in opposition. The control of administrative discretion is far from being based on the perspective of administrative jurisprudence and political science. It should also be concerned by ethics and regulated by ethics, which is determined by its ethical characteristics and legal blind spots of discretion space. The legitimacy of the existence of administrative discretion is the premise of ethical regulation. There is no basis for the birth of hair without existence. Human society chooses the law to deal with the weakness of human nature, and at the same time, the people who have the weakness of human nature exercise their discretion to enforce the law. How to understand and solve the problem of "two laws against"? Only from the human premise of "also good and evil" can we get a reasonable interpretation. In addition, the moderate administrative discretion not only meets the needs of modern service administration, but also embodies the value demand of the justice order, and overcomes the inherent deficiency of the rule of law and complements the rule of law. All this justifies its existence. As a kind of ethical discretion, the process of exercising administrative discretion is not so much a process of what means, ways and procedures to take to complex administrative affairs within the framework of legal rules. Rather, it is a process of moral choice based on what kind of belief and value pursuit the power exercisers based on, so it is necessary to consider the relevant factors that affect the moral choice, such as moral ability, administrative belief and the power of the situation in which the power operates, and so on. It also explores the value conflicts, ethical dilemmas and moral risks that the administrative discretion may encounter in the course of operation. The existence of the administrative discretion does not necessarily mean that it can be properly exercised. How to guarantee administrative discretion in the face of various value conflicts, ethical conflicts and possible ethical dilemmas, can truly achieve case justice and substantive justice, obviously can not do without the support of ethics and moral constraints. These ethical support and moral constraints are mainly revealed through certain ethical principles. Specifically, administrative subjects and administrators are required to follow the principles of justice, rationality, honesty, moderation and responsibility. Through the construction of ethical principles, the administrative discretion can be properly exercised within the legal framework and the moral boundary through the construction of the ethical principles and the formation of the resultant force in the regulation of the administrative discretion together with the legal rules. Administrative discretion is easily alienated beyond the boundary, and the injustice caused by its alienation must be corrected by ethics. In view of the inherent expansibility of power, self-corruption and non-purity of power environment, the exercise of administrative discretion is more likely to appear tension, alienation, or even arbitrary, autocratic, tyranny and other injustice. How to correct? On the basis of analyzing the characteristics and limitations of the existing judicial correction model, the author puts forward that, through virtue cultivation, responsibility relief and good system, The mechanism and path of creating a just environment are ethical correction and governance of the "injustice" of the administrative discretion.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D035;B82-051

【参考文献】