本文關鍵詞：公民極端維權行為的社會發(fā)生機制探析　出處：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 權利 權力 極端維權 利益表達機制

【摘要】：隨著城鎮(zhèn)化的加快,民眾權利意識的覺醒，基層利益博弈與利益協(xié)調成為了一個不得不關注的主題。從2009年的“唐福珍案”起，先后發(fā)生了諸起自焚抵抗拆遷事件，如江蘇省連云港市東海縣黃川鎮(zhèn)、湖北省武漢市黃陂區(qū)等。而后的冀中星案，暴力抗爭進入了我們的思考范圍。這讓我們不得不反思：在這個法律成為當前社會控制的主要手段的時候，我們的基層民眾卻是在“以身體抗爭”，尤其在面對公權力的強制進入的時候，，沖突的解決似乎脫離了秩序化和程序化的軌道�；鶎訖嗬目範幒我圆煌ㄟ^制度救濟，而是“以生命為賭”這種極端的方式來實現(xiàn)自身財產權利？先前的“日常抵抗”、“依法抗爭”、“以法抗爭”等理論模式已經不能解釋這一現(xiàn)象。這是本文探討的焦點，并在此分析的基礎上探索終結“身體維權”的合理的制度設計。 本文基于法學理論的角度，收集大量的極端維權案例，通過對案例如“宜黃事件”等極端維權事件的分析，探討當下社會極端維權方式背后的原因，糾正目前利益表達機制的內在缺陷，期望能使基層民眾的權利斗爭方式納入正常的利益表達機制當中。本文并不是鼓吹極端的權利斗爭，而是想表達當民眾在面對不合理的制度侵害，想要維權卻又沒有合法的利益表達機制保障的時候，我們應該給予的制度支持。 通過對案例的分析和實際的訪談，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)極端維權行為的發(fā)生是一個行為邏輯的選擇過程：目前利益分配制度存在的潛在的不公使得權益人認為自己的利益受到不公正的侵害，當事人會處于憤慨、忍讓、無奈、妥協(xié)或者反抗的狀態(tài)中。當人們認為自己權益受到侵害的痛苦大于忍讓的痛苦之后，就會尋求反抗措施——制度內的救濟或者制度外的救濟。當制度內的救濟不能充分的實現(xiàn)當事人的利益表達，而這種行為又使其與政府或者資本持有者“撕破臉”時,為了獲得社會輿論道德的支持，同時給對方施加壓力，或者讓上級部門“批示”處理，加之先驗和先例的“示范”效應，當事人就可能采取極端行為，而極端的維權事件也就極可能發(fā)生。 根據極端維權行為的邏輯選擇的分析，筆者認為制度分配的缺陷是引發(fā)極端維權事件的起因，制度內的司法救濟途徑的不暢通和無權威性是驅使當事人選擇制度外救濟途徑的關鍵因素，而釋放社會不滿情緒的安全閥被堵塞和行政部門在事件發(fā)生過程中的不當處理是極端事件發(fā)生的催化劑。因此，完善利益分配制度、樹立司法的權威、排放社會不良的“氣”并且加強對行政權力行使的監(jiān)督，這會大大減少極端維權事件的發(fā)生。
[Abstract]:With the acceleration of urbanization and the awakening of the awareness of people's rights, the grass-roots interest game and interest coordination has become a topic that we have to pay close attention to, starting from the Tang Fuzhen case in 2009. There have been various incidents of self-immolation and resistance to demolition, such as Huangchuan Town, Donghai County, Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province, Huangpi District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, and the Jizhong Star case. Violent protests have come into our minds. This has forced us to reflect on the fact that while this law has become the primary means of social control, our grassroots are "fighting physically". Especially in the face of the compulsory entry of public power, conflict resolution seems to be divorced from the orbit of order and procedure. But "bet on life" this extreme way to realize their own property rights? The previous theoretical models of "daily resistance", "struggle according to law" and "fight by law" can no longer explain this phenomenon. This is the focus of this paper. On the basis of this analysis, the author explores the reasonable system design to end body protection. Based on the perspective of legal theory, this paper collects a large number of extreme rights protection cases, through the case such as "Yihuang incident" such as extreme rights protection events analysis, to explore the current social extreme rights protection way behind the reasons. Correct the inherent defects of the current interest expression mechanism, hope to make the grass-roots people's right struggle way into the normal interest expression mechanism. This article is not advocating extreme rights struggle. Instead, we want to express the institutional support that we should give when people are facing unreasonable system infringement, but they want to protect their rights but there is no legal interest expression mechanism. Through the case analysis and actual interviews. The author finds that the occurrence of extreme rights protection behavior is a logical choice process: the potential injustice of the current benefit distribution system makes the rights and interests feel that their interests have been unjustly infringed. The parties will be in a state of indignation, forbearance, helplessness, compromise or resistance. Will seek resistance measures-relief within the system or relief outside of the system, when the relief within the system can not fully realize the interests of the parties to express. And this kind of behavior causes it to "tear the face" with the government or the capital holder, in order to obtain the public opinion moral support, at the same time exerts the pressure to the other party, or lets the superior department "instruct" to deal with. In addition to the "demonstration" effect of a priori and a precedent, the parties may take extreme actions, and extreme events of safeguarding rights are also very likely to occur. According to the analysis of the logical choice of extreme rights safeguarding behavior, the author thinks that the defect of system distribution is the cause of the extreme rights protection event. The lack of smooth and authoritative judicial remedies is the key factor that drives the parties to choose the remedy channels outside the system. The safety valve to release the social discontent is blocked and the improper handling of the administrative department in the event is the catalyst of extreme events. Therefore, improve the benefit distribution system, establish the authority of the judiciary. Emissions of bad social "gas" and strengthened supervision of the exercise of administrative power will greatly reduce the incidence of extreme activism.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D90-052

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 裴宜理;閻小駿;;底層社會與抗爭性政治[J];東南學術;2008年03期

2 查特吉;關注底層[J];讀書;2001年08期

3 郭于華;“弱者的武器”與“隱藏的文本”——研究農民反抗的底層視角[J];讀書;2002年07期

4 陳柏峰;;傳媒監(jiān)督權行使如何法治——從“宜黃事件”切入[J];法學家;2012年01期

5 李彥生;;由極端方式私力救濟的現(xiàn)狀看公力救濟——對公力救濟制度性缺陷的法律分析[J];時代法學;2010年06期

6 楊正喜;唐鳴;;農民非制度化利益表達原因探微[J];蘭州學刊;2006年03期

7 姚望;;農民非常態(tài)利益表達行動邏輯新探——以“沉默的螺旋”理論為分析視角[J];農村經濟;2009年06期

8 于建嶸;;利益博弈與抗爭性政治——當代中國社會沖突的政治社會學理解[J];中國農業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2009年01期

9 董海軍;;“作為武器的弱者身份”:農民維權抗爭的底層政治[J];社會;2008年04期

10 王洪偉;;當代中國底層社會“以身抗爭”的效度和限度分析 一個“艾滋村民”抗爭維權的啟示[J];社會;2010年02期

本文編號：1380085