美国行政立法的公众评议制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 20:17

本文选题：行政立法 + 公众评议　；参考：《山东大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：公众参与对行政立法的合法化、科学化、民主化具有重要意义。本文对美国行政立法的公众评议制度的起源与发展、理论基础、价值目标、程序特点以及实施效果等方面进行了系统的考察,分析其优势与缺陷,目的是针对我国行政立法公众评议现状中存在的不足提出具有可操作性的改进意见。在研究方法上,本文主要采用了文献研究、模型评估、比较分析以及个案研究等方法。美国行政立法的公众评议制度自1946年正式确立,半个世纪以来为美国政府产生的大量规章输送了极具价值的合法性与民主元素。在行政法传统模式对行政机关自由裁量权控制失灵、社会普遍接受了多元主义对确定的公共利益概念的瓦解的前提下,行政立法被认为是非民选的行政官员在替公民进行大量的价值选择。因此在行政过程中增加公民的直接参与,成为解决行政立法合法性危机的重要途径,它也是司法裁判领域的正当法律程序原则在行政立法领域的延伸。作为公众参与的一种方式,行政立法的公众评议被参与式民主政治潮流及新公共管理理论共同推进。行政立法的公众评议具有多重价值。公民直接参与在一定程度上弥补了代议制民主的不足,增强了行政立法活动的合法性；行政机关自身的组织特点及局限性决定了其必须依赖外部资源才能进行有效的规制活动,而公众评议改变了以往信息从政府到公众的单向流动,整合了公众与政府各自的信息与知识优势,从而提升规章内容的合理性；直接参与所具有的教育功能和心理作用,将会提高公众对规章的认可度,赢得利益团体和公众对政府的信任与支持,有利于法规的执行美国行政立法的公众评议制度包括草案公布、公众评议、规章修改与公布个基本环节,其全过程受到1946年《美国联邦行政程序法》的统一保障和规范,同时接受法院的司法审查。除法律明确排除的事项,所有实体性规章均受到公众评议的要求,具体的程序适用以对实体性规章根据重要性和主题的分类为前提。评议方式以30天期限的书面评论为法律最低要求,但在实践中,规制部门通常会在半年左右时间内持续接受书面以及由规制部门选择的其他方式提供的评论。公众意见不必须被采纳,但政府对公众评论负有回复和说明的责任,这个过程足以促使政府认真应对公众意见。作为公众评议最强有力的监督,法院的司法审查发挥着重要作用,但也带来了一定的负面影响。公众评议制度在形式上提供了广泛而平等的参与机会。虽然实际参与率主要受规章的公众利益相关度影响,与程序关系不大,但公众评议是能够容纳庞大人数的公众参与规章制定的可操作机制。与受到人数制约和随机挑选参与者的参与方式相比,公众评议中的公众意见更具有广泛性和代表性。强大的利益集团容易控制行政决策的固有优势在公众评议中仍存在,但可以被更严格、合理的程序所限制。但是,由于公众评议的方式无法集中争议焦点、无法进行反复沟通等缺陷,在供给有价值信息和促成多方协调一致方面的效能并不如对话类和协商类的参与方式高,尤其是在一些技术复杂的和特别需要赢得利益团体支持的规制场合。由于具有良好的法律程序控制,公众评议对规章制定的效率并没有明显的负面作用,其成本受参与率以及程序的细节变化影响。以美国为参照,我国当前的公众评议还存在很多不足和缺陷。如,缺乏法律统一的程序性规范、评议方式单一、评议期限过短、对拟议规章没有分类导致程序的适用缺乏针对性、缺乏政府回应约束机制、违法救济环节缺失等。这些问题严重影响了公众评议效果的发挥。因此,我国的行政立法公众评议应尽快建立统一的法律程序规范,加快《行政程序法》的立法进程,制定《行政立法公众评议法》。评议方式应更加有针对性、透明、使民,同时加强政府回应的法律约束。通过设立专门的审查机构为公众评议提供救济途径。将公众评议程序与其他参与方式有机结合。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.1

【参考文献】