美国行政行为司法审查范围研究

发布时间：2018-04-19 17:47

本文选题：美国 + 司法审查　；参考：《郑州大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 尽管每个国家的具体表述存在差异,但是受案范围作为行政诉讼制度中一个尤其重要的内容,决定着一个国家的司法机关能够审查的行政行为的范围,体现了一国司法机关对行政权的监督力度；同时还反映了一国司法对公民个人权利的保障力度；甚至有的国家认为行政诉讼的受案范围展示了一国司法、行政、立法机关对行政机关监督层面上所体现的分工,可见,受案范围是行政诉讼制度一项很重要的内容,影响着行政诉讼的其他制度和内容。研究我国行政诉讼受案范围的学术成果并不鲜见,但是运用比较的方法,放眼海外探寻其他国家,尤其是探寻司法理论比较发达的美国其行政行为的司法审查状况,而看出有着不同历史背景和文化传统的两国有关行政诉讼受案范围的有关内容存在何种意义上的联系与区别,并且从判例法国家的一些具有代表性的司法判例着手来考究两国行政行为司法审查的异同,在国内目前还很少有学者涉猎这个问题。笔者就斗胆献丑,将自己的一点拙见惶恐披露,还望各位专家同仁批评指正。本文共分为五个部分：第一部分是绪论部分,该部分笔者提出了本文的只要研究问题、已有的研究成果,本文的创新之处和存在的诸多不多。第二部分就与本文有关的一些概念如司法审查、行政行为、司法审查的范围与强度等进行界定与区分。这是我们解决接下来的一些具体问题的前提,只有将这些基本概念分析清楚,以后的理论分析和实践考察才能站得住脚。第三部分是对美国行政行为司法审查情况的介绍。从美国由主权豁免向可以审查的假定原则过渡,美国开始了对行政行为的司法审查,之后经历了20世纪罗斯福新政、联邦程序法的颁布、20世纪60、70年代、60年代至1984年、1984年至今等阶段,并且每个阶段美国行政行为司法审查又呈现了自身的特征。第四部分是探寻美国行政行为司法审查之所以呈现这种变迁情况的原因,其中包括司法理念层面的原因和法官在具体案件的审理过程中对公共利益和个人利益的选择问题,法官以不同的视角看待一行为能否被诉的问题可能会得出不同的结论。第五部分主要考察美国行政行为的司法审查变迁情况对我们这样一个制定法的国家有什么借鉴意义。虽然我们不赋予司法判例约束力,但是在坚持制定法传统的框架下,我们仍然可以充分发挥法官司法者的作用,利用其专业知识来扩大行政诉讼的受案范围,从而来扩大对行政权的监督、保障公民的合法权益。
[Abstract]:Although the specific statements of each country vary, the scope of cases, as a particularly important element of the administrative litigation system, determines the scope of the administrative acts that the judicial organs of a country can review,It reflects the degree of supervision of the executive power by the judicial organs of a country; at the same time, it also reflects the degree of protection of the individual rights of citizens by the administration of justice in a country. Some countries even think that the scope of accepting a case in an administrative proceeding shows the judicial and administrative aspects of a country.The division of labor embodied in the supervision of administrative organs by the legislature shows that the scope of accepting cases is a very important content of the administrative litigation system, which affects the other systems and contents of administrative litigation.It is not uncommon to study the scope of administrative litigation cases in China, but using comparative methods, looking overseas to explore other countries, especially to explore the judicial review of its administrative acts in the United States, where judicial theory is relatively developed.And we can see what kind of connections and differences exist in the relevant contents of the scope of administrative litigation cases between the two countries with different historical backgrounds and cultural traditions.And from some representative judicial precedents of the case law countries to explore the similarities and differences of judicial review of administrative acts between the two countries, at present there are few scholars dabbling in this issue.I have the courage to offer ugly, their own humble opinion panic disclosure, but also hope that the expert colleagues criticism and correction.This paper is divided into five parts:The first part is the introduction part. The author puts forward only the research problems, the existing research results, the innovation of this paper and the existence of a lot of little.The second part defines and distinguishes some concepts related to this article, such as judicial review, administrative act, scope and intensity of judicial review.This is the premise for us to solve the following specific problems. Only by analyzing these basic concepts clearly, can the theoretical analysis and practical investigation in the future be able to hold water.The third part is an introduction to the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States.From the United States from sovereign immunity to the principle of supposition that can be examined, the United States began the judicial review of administrative acts, and then went through the New deal of Roosevelt in the 20th century.The promulgation of the Federal procedural Law in the 1960s and 1970s-1984, 1984 and so on, and each stage of the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States has its own characteristics.The fourth part is to explore the reasons why the judicial review of administrative acts in the United States presents this kind of change, including the reasons of judicial concept and the choice of public and personal interests of judges in the process of hearing specific cases.Judges may come to different conclusions about whether an act can be prosecuted from different perspectives.The fifth part mainly examines the changes of judicial review of administrative acts in the United States.Although we do not give binding effect to judicial precedents, under the framework of upholding the tradition of statutory law, we can still give full play to the role of judges and judiciaries and use their expertise to expand the scope of cases in administrative proceedings.So as to expand the supervision of administrative power, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：DD912.1;D971.2

【参考文献】