本文選題：行政裁量基準(zhǔn) + 司法審查��； 參考：《華東師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：行政裁量基準(zhǔn)制度是應(yīng)現(xiàn)實(shí)的需要而產(chǎn)生,它的制度功能在于限制裁量權(quán)的恣意行使和保障執(zhí)法統(tǒng)一性等方面。我國(guó)裁量基準(zhǔn)可以分為技術(shù)性裁量基準(zhǔn)與政策性裁量基準(zhǔn)兩類,行政機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)它們的態(tài)度有明顯的不同,存在這種區(qū)分的根本原因在于裁量基準(zhǔn)蘊(yùn)含的裁量性之多少。裁量基準(zhǔn)制度在我國(guó)的興起是自發(fā)的,是自下而上的,因此在立法層面上的規(guī)制會(huì)存在一定的缺失,裁量基準(zhǔn)制度的施行存在一定的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。除了依靠行政機(jī)關(guān)的內(nèi)部自我監(jiān)督與規(guī)范,公眾與輿論的監(jiān)督,還需要司法權(quán)力的控制。因裁量基準(zhǔn)的特殊性質(zhì)與我國(guó)司法審查體系的約束,司法權(quán)對(duì)其的控制往往只是存在于理論層面,實(shí)踐中多存在于法官的思想中,并通過(guò)裁判文書的形式體現(xiàn)出來(lái)。文章對(duì)相關(guān)裁判文書的整理后發(fā)現(xiàn),法院總體上對(duì)技術(shù)性裁量基準(zhǔn)有著較大的回旋余地,對(duì)政策性裁量基準(zhǔn)則以尊重為主。 文中第一章從分析裁量基準(zhǔn)制度的制度意義入手,引出了裁量基準(zhǔn)制度的三個(gè)本質(zhì)特征。 第二章討論了我國(guó)裁量基準(zhǔn)制度興起的過(guò)程,并試圖對(duì)實(shí)踐中裁量基準(zhǔn)制度的類型進(jìn)行了區(qū)分。本章節(jié)在論述的同時(shí)指出標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的區(qū)分因素,這是文章的通篇線索。 第三章探討了裁量基準(zhǔn)制定程序的外在要求。裁量基準(zhǔn)的制定程序要求較低,不能達(dá)到法律制定的程度要求,這也是法院對(duì)裁量基準(zhǔn)難以進(jìn)行充分審查的原因之一。 第四章在考察我國(guó)裁量基準(zhǔn)的司法審查實(shí)踐之前先進(jìn)行了理論整理,并試圖在我國(guó)行政訴訟制度下尋找制度空間。 第五章從宏觀到微觀仔細(xì)疏理了搜尋到的案例,總結(jié)出了我國(guó)法院對(duì)裁量基準(zhǔn)司法審查的大致思路。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.1;D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱新力;唐明良;;尊重與戒懼之間——行政裁量基準(zhǔn)在司法審查中的地位[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2009年02期

2 章志遠(yuǎn);;行政裁量基準(zhǔn)的興起與現(xiàn)實(shí)課題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2010年01期

3 周佑勇;錢卿;;裁量基準(zhǔn)在中國(guó)的本土實(shí)踐——浙江金華行政處罰裁量基準(zhǔn)調(diào)查研究[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年04期

4 高秦偉;;美國(guó)行政法上的非立法性規(guī)則及其啟示[J];法商研究;2011年02期

5 周佑勇;;裁量基準(zhǔn)的制度定位——以行政自制為視角[J];法學(xué)家;2011年04期

6 王天華;;裁量基準(zhǔn)與個(gè)別情況考慮義務(wù)——周文明訴文山交警不按“紅頭文件”處罰案評(píng)析[J];交大法學(xué);2011年01期

7 王錫鋅;;自由裁量權(quán)基準(zhǔn):技術(shù)的創(chuàng)新還是誤用[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年05期

8 周佑勇;熊樟林;;裁量基準(zhǔn)司法審查的區(qū)分技術(shù)[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年05期

9 余凌云;;游走在規(guī)范與僵化之間——對(duì)金華行政裁量基準(zhǔn)實(shí)踐的思考[J];清華法學(xué);2008年03期

10 周星亮;金華警方:推行陽(yáng)光新政[J];時(shí)代潮;2004年13期

，

本文編號(hào)：1887630