本文選題：行政立法 + 公眾評議　； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：公眾參與對行政立法的合法化、科學(xué)化、民主化具有重要意義。本文對美國行政立法的公眾評議制度的起源與發(fā)展、理論基礎(chǔ)、價值目標(biāo)、程序特點(diǎn)以及實施效果等方面進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的考察,分析其優(yōu)勢與缺陷,目的是針對我國行政立法公眾評議現(xiàn)狀中存在的不足提出具有可操作性的改進(jìn)意見。在研究方法上,本文主要采用了文獻(xiàn)研究、模型評估、比較分析以及個案研究等方法。 美國行政立法的公眾評議制度自1946年正式確立,半個世紀(jì)以來為美國政府產(chǎn)生的大量規(guī)章輸送了極具價值的合法性與民主元素。在行政法傳統(tǒng)模式對行政機(jī)關(guān)自由裁量權(quán)控制失靈、社會普遍接受了多元主義對確定的公共利益概念的瓦解的前提下,行政立法被認(rèn)為是非民選的行政官員在替公民進(jìn)行大量的價值選擇。因此在行政過程中增加公民的直接參與,成為解決行政立法合法性危機(jī)的重要途徑,它也是司法裁判領(lǐng)域的正當(dāng)法律程序原則在行政立法領(lǐng)域的延伸。作為公眾參與的一種方式,行政立法的公眾評議被參與式民主政治潮流及新公共管理理論共同推進(jìn)。 行政立法的公眾評議具有多重價值。公民直接參與在一定程度上彌補(bǔ)了代議制民主的不足,增強(qiáng)了行政立法活動的合法性；行政機(jī)關(guān)自身的組織特點(diǎn)及局限性決定了其必須依賴外部資源才能進(jìn)行有效的規(guī)制活動,而公眾評議改變了以往信息從政府到公眾的單向流動,整合了公眾與政府各自的信息與知識優(yōu)勢,從而提升規(guī)章內(nèi)容的合理性；直接參與所具有的教育功能和心理作用,將會提高公眾對規(guī)章的認(rèn)可度,贏得利益團(tuán)體和公眾對政府的信任與支持,有利于法規(guī)的執(zhí)行 美國行政立法的公眾評議制度包括草案公布、公眾評議、規(guī)章修改與公布個基本環(huán)節(jié),其全過程受到1946年《美國聯(lián)邦行政程序法》的統(tǒng)一保障和規(guī)范,同時接受法院的司法審查。除法律明確排除的事項,所有實體性規(guī)章均受到公眾評議的要求,具體的程序適用以對實體性規(guī)章根據(jù)重要性和主題的分類為前提。評議方式以30天期限的書面評論為法律最低要求,但在實踐中,規(guī)制部門通常會在半年左右時間內(nèi)持續(xù)接受書面以及由規(guī)制部門選擇的其他方式提供的評論。公眾意見不必須被采納,但政府對公眾評論負(fù)有回復(fù)和說明的責(zé)任,這個過程足以促使政府認(rèn)真應(yīng)對公眾意見。作為公眾評議最強(qiáng)有力的監(jiān)督,法院的司法審查發(fā)揮著重要作用,但也帶來了一定的負(fù)面影響。 公眾評議制度在形式上提供了廣泛而平等的參與機(jī)會。雖然實際參與率主要受規(guī)章的公眾利益相關(guān)度影響,與程序關(guān)系不大,但公眾評議是能夠容納龐大人數(shù)的公眾參與規(guī)章制定的可操作機(jī)制。與受到人數(shù)制約和隨機(jī)挑選參與者的參與方式相比,公眾評議中的公眾意見更具有廣泛性和代表性。強(qiáng)大的利益集團(tuán)容易控制行政決策的固有優(yōu)勢在公眾評議中仍存在,但可以被更嚴(yán)格、合理的程序所限制。但是,由于公眾評議的方式無法集中爭議焦點(diǎn)、無法進(jìn)行反復(fù)溝通等缺陷,在供給有價值信息和促成多方協(xié)調(diào)一致方面的效能并不如對話類和協(xié)商類的參與方式高,尤其是在一些技術(shù)復(fù)雜的和特別需要贏得利益團(tuán)體支持的規(guī)制場合。由于具有良好的法律程序控制,公眾評議對規(guī)章制定的效率并沒有明顯的負(fù)面作用,其成本受參與率以及程序的細(xì)節(jié)變化影響。 以美國為參照,我國當(dāng)前的公眾評議還存在很多不足和缺陷。如,缺乏法律統(tǒng)一的程序性規(guī)范、評議方式單一、評議期限過短、對擬議規(guī)章沒有分類導(dǎo)致程序的適用缺乏針對性、缺乏政府回應(yīng)約束機(jī)制、違法救濟(jì)環(huán)節(jié)缺失等。這些問題嚴(yán)重影響了公眾評議效果的發(fā)揮。因此,我國的行政立法公眾評議應(yīng)盡快建立統(tǒng)一的法律程序規(guī)范,加快《行政程序法》的立法進(jìn)程,制定《行政立法公眾評議法》。評議方式應(yīng)更加有針對性、透明、使民,同時加強(qiáng)政府回應(yīng)的法律約束。通過設(shè)立專門的審查機(jī)構(gòu)為公眾評議提供救濟(jì)途徑。將公眾評議程序與其他參與方式有機(jī)結(jié)合。
[Abstract]:The public participation is of great significance to the legalization, scientization and democratization of the administrative legislation. This paper systematically investigates the origin and development of the public comment system of the American administrative legislation, the theoretical basis, the value target, the characteristics of the procedure and the effect of its implementation, and analyzes its advantages and defects, aiming at the public legislative public of our country. The deficiencies in the present review present the improvement opinions that are operable. In the study method, this paper mainly adopts the methods of literature research, model evaluation, comparative analysis and case study.
The public comment system of American administrative legislation has been formally established since 1946. For half a century, a large number of rules and regulations produced by the United States government have conveyed very valuable elements of legitimacy and democracy. In the traditional mode of administrative law, the control of the discretion of the administrative organs has failed, and the society generally accepted the concept of pluralism to the established public interests. Under the premise of disintegration, the administrative legislation is considered to be the non elected administrative officials to carry on a large number of value choices for the citizens. Therefore, in the administrative process, increasing the direct participation of the citizens is an important way to solve the legal crisis of the administrative legislation. It is also an extension of the legal procedure principle of the judicial referee in the field of administrative legislation. As a way of public participation, public comment on administrative legislation is jointly promoted by the participatory democratic political trend and the new public management theory.
The public comment of administrative legislation has multiple values. Direct citizen participation makes up for the lack of representative democracy to a certain extent and strengthens the legitimacy of administrative legislative activities; the organizational characteristics and limitations of the administrative organs decide that they must rely on external resources to carry out effective regulatory activities, and the public comments have changed. The one-way flow of information from the government to the public has integrated the information and knowledge advantages of the public and the government, thus improving the rationality of the rules and contents; directly participating in the educational and psychological functions of the public, will improve the public recognition of the regulations, win the trust and support of the interest groups and the public to the government, and benefit the law. Implementation of rules
The public comment system of American administrative legislation includes the publication of the draft, the public comment, the revision and the publication of the basic links, the whole process of which is guaranteed and regulated by the United States Federal Administrative Procedure Law in 1946, and the judicial review of the court. All the substantive rules and regulations, except for the clear exclusion of the law, are commended by the public. It is required that the specific procedures apply to the premise of the importance of substantive rules and the classification of the subject. The written comment of the 30 day period is the minimum requirement, but in practice, the regulatory department will normally accept the written and the comments provided by the regulatory department in other ways within half a year or so. Opinions do not have to be adopted, but the government has a responsibility to reply and explain public comments. This process is enough to prompt the government to seriously respond to public opinion. As the most powerful supervision of the public, the judicial review of the court plays an important role, but it also brings a certain negative impact.
The public comment system provides a wide and equal opportunity to participate in the form. Although the actual participation rate is mainly influenced by the public interest correlation of the regulations, it is not related to the procedure, but public comment is an operational mechanism that can accommodate the large number of public participation in the rules and regulations. Compared with the way, public opinion is more extensive and representative. The inherent advantages of a powerful interest group that can easily control administrative decisions still exist in public comments, but can be restricted by more stringent and reasonable procedures. However, because public comments can not focus on the focus of controversy, it is impossible to communicate repeatedly, etc. Defects, the effectiveness of providing valuable information and facilitating multiparty coordination is not as high as the participation of dialogues and consultative classes, especially in some regulatory situations with complex technology and special need to win the support of interest groups. Due to good legal procedures, public comments are not effective in the efficiency of rules and regulations. The obvious negative effect is influenced by the participation rate and the details of the procedure.
With the reference of the United States, there are still a lot of shortcomings and shortcomings in our current public comments. For example, the lack of legal unified procedural norms, a single evaluation method, a short period of review, lack of classification of the proposed rules and the lack of pertinence to the application of the procedures, lack of government response mechanism and the lack of illegal relief links. Therefore, the public comment of the public evaluation should be brought into play. Therefore, the public review of the administrative legislation in China should set up a unified legal procedure as soon as possible, accelerate the legislative process of the administrative procedure law and formulate the public comment law of the administrative legislation. The method of evaluation should be more targeted, transparent, and strengthen the legal constraints of the government's response. The censorship of the door provides relief for public comment. It combines the public appraisal procedure with other ways of participation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 董石桃;;當(dāng)代西方參與式民主理論的研究視域[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2010年05期

2 李蓉蓉;;政治效能感:內(nèi)涵與價值[J];晉陽學(xué)刊;2010年02期

3 李鵬;;當(dāng)代參與式民主理論的緣起及其要義[J];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2010年05期

4 杰克Ｍ·伯曼;美國行政規(guī)章制定程序[J];行政法學(xué)研究;1996年02期

5 張千帆;;美國行政立法程序的模式選擇與變通[J];浙江學(xué)刊;2006年06期

，

本文編號：2032317