美国城市规划诉讼中的成熟性原则研究

发布时间：2018-03-25 12:48

本文选题：成熟性原则　切入点：合理补偿　出处：《南京大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：成熟性原则是美国行政法上的一项基本原则,它要求所诉案件必须发展到能够起诉的阶段,当事人才能提出控诉,否则法院不予受理。成熟性原则对于案件的审理具有非常重要的意义,经常被称作为“司法审查的门槛”,其被广泛的应用于行政法的判例中。随着二战以后美国不断发展的城市化进程,美国政府加强了对土地利用的规制,城市规划诉讼类案件的发生越来越频繁。法院在审理该类案件的过程中也不断的寻找着可以有效适用于其中的规则。成熟性原则上述的基本原理和作用使得法院发现其更适合应用于城市规划诉讼案件中,于是,自1967年的Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York案法院初次适用了成熟性原则以后,该原则便被更多的应用于城市规划诉讼案件中。但成熟性原则在我国的研究仍处于初始阶段,研究者甚少。该原则最早由王名扬教授在其《美国行政法》一书中进行了简单介绍,并且至今都是对该原则最权威的解释,国内学者对成熟性原则的探讨也多引自该书。但从目前学者的论著来看,学者们的研究重点还集中在从行政法学的基本理论角度探讨成熟性原则的起源和含义、发展和确立、理论基础、实践应用等方面,而未对该原则在美国行政诉讼中的实践方面进行深入的研究。针对该学术的空白,本文欲选取成熟性原则应用得最为广泛的城市规划诉讼案件为方向,通过对美国该类诉讼中的成熟性原则的研究为切入口,深入探求成熟性原则在解决城市规划诉讼案件中的发展应用,为我国行政诉讼法对城市规划中成熟性原则的引进提供借鉴,为未来学者的研究提供一己之力。本文第一章“成熟性原则的缘起”主要介绍了成熟性原则的含义、作用以及其在美国城市规划诉讼过程中扮演的角色。第二章主要介绍了成熟性原则在美国城市规划案件中的发展。该部分详细的介绍了六个案例,根据成熟性原则的发展过程被分为三个部分：第一部分是1967年的佩恩中央运输公司诉纽约市案(Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York)和1969年的阿金斯诉加州提布伦市案(Agins v. City of Tiburon),这两个案件开启了成熟性原则在城市规划诉讼案件中的应用,是成熟性原则的基础。自此之后,成熟性原则便被广泛的应用于城市规划诉讼案件中；第二部分是1985年的威廉姆森县区域规划委员会诉汉密尔顿银行案(Williamson County Regional Planning Commision v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City)和1986年的麦克唐纳,萨默以及弗瑞特斯诉优洛县案(Macdonald, Sommer Frates v.Yolo County),这两个案件具有里程碑意义,它们确立和修正了城市规划诉讼案件的成熟性原则的标准,并在很长一段时间内被广泛的引用,影响颇深。第三部分是1992年的卢卡斯诉南卡罗莱纳州海岸委员会案(Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council)以及1996年的休特姆诉塔河地区规划机关案(Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency),这两个案件初步的放宽了城市规划诉讼案件成熟性原则的适用要求,使得成熟性原则的适用更加灵活,更加能被开发者所接受。至此,成熟性原则发展成为一个独立的体系。第三章阐述的是成熟性原则的标准,主要根据上一章六个案例总结而出,确立了两大相互独立的标准：终局性判断和州补偿。在第一个标准“终局性判断”中,又详细的介绍了富有意义的申请、再申请、无用的例外以及无意义的修正四项内容；在第二个标准“州补偿”中,详细论述了州补偿程序的重要性和存在的问题。第四章是对成熟性原则存在的不足之处的总结,分三个方向进行论述：第一成熟性原则与其他相关原则界限不清；第二,成熟性原则易造成对财产所有者的不公平；第三,成熟性原则的适用标准不一,影响法律权威性。最后一部分是结论,即是对中国法的借鉴。美国城市规划诉讼中的成熟性原则从初步应用到最终确立经历了30多年的时间,并且一直在实践中不断的发展着,所以,我国对城市规划诉讼中成熟性原则的引进也应当是一个循序渐进的过程。我们应该有选择的借鉴美国相关法律制度,并根据我国具体的国情做适当改变,完善相关的配套制度,尽快确立起适合我国城市规划诉讼的成熟性原则。
[Abstract]:The maturity of the principle is a basic principle of American administrative law, it requires the prosecution to prosecute must develop stage, the parties can prosecute or thecourtwillnotacceptandhearthecase. Has a very important significance for the principle of trial mature cases, is often referred to as the "judicial review threshold", which is widely the application to the administrative law case. With the continuous development of the city after World War II the United States process, the U.S. government strengthened the regulation of land use, city planning litigation cases occurred more and more frequently. In the process of the court hearing the case is also constantly looking for can effectively apply to the basic rules. The principle of the principle and function of mature makes the court found it more suitable for application in the city planning cases, then, since 1967, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of After the New York court first apply mature principle, this principle has been more and more applied to the city planning in a lawsuit. But the mature principle in the research in China is still in the initial stage, few researchers. The principle of the earliest by Professor Wang Mingyang in the "American administrative law" a book in a simple introduced, and it is still the most authoritative interpretation of the principle of the principle of the mature, domestic scholars have many from the book. But from the current works of scholars, the research focus of scholars have focused on the basic theories of the administrative law point of the origin and meaning of the principle of ripe, establishment and development and the theoretical foundation, practical application, but not for the practice of the principle of administrative litigation in the United States in the aspects of in-depth study. According to the academic blank, this paper will select the most mature application of the principle of city wide gauge Draw lawsuits for direction, through the study of the principle of the mature procedure in the entrance, to further explore the mature principle in the development and application of city planning to solve the proceedings, as the administrative procedure law of our country to provide the reference for the introduction of the principle of mature city planning, in order to provide the power of their own future the scholar's research. In the first chapter, "origin" ripeness principle mainly introduced the maturity of the meaning of the principle, function and its role in city planning procedure in the United States. The second chapter mainly introduces the principle of development of city planning in the United States in the case. This part introduces six cases which is divided into three parts according to the development process of mature principle: the first part is the 1967 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. city of New York (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York) and 19 69 years of California City v. Agins case (Agins v. City - of Tiburon), two cases of this opens the application of mature principle in city planning in a lawsuit, is the basic principle of maturity. Since then, the maturity of the principle have been widely used in city planning proceedings; the second part is in 1985, the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton case (Williamson County Regional Planning bank Commision v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City) and Macdonald in 1986, and the Vladimir Sommer reterse v. Yolo county (Macdonald Sommer Frates v.Yolo case, County), have milepost significance of these two cases, they established the principle of fixed and mature city planning case standard, and in a very long period of time has been widely cited, deep impact. The third part is the 1992 Lucas v. South Carolina Carolina coast Committee (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal case Council) and 1996 Xiutemu v. Tahe District Planning Authority (Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning case Agency), two cases of this initial relaxation of the city planning litigation mature principle of applicable requirements, the applicable principle of maturity can be more flexible, more developers to accept. So far, the maturity of the principle of development as an independent system. The third chapter is about the principle of maturity, mainly based on the last chapter six cases, established two independent criteria: final judgment and state compensation. In the first standard "final judgment in the detailed introduction of meaningful application, apply again, useless exceptions and the contents of the four amendment without meaning; in the second standard" state compensation "in detail, The importance of compensation procedures and problems. The fourth chapter is about the shortcomings of Ripeness Principle summed up the three directions for discussion: the first mature principle and other related principles is unclear; second, the maturity of the principle of cause of property owners unfair; third, the applicable standards mature principle no, affect the legal authority. The last part is the conclusion, which is the China law. American city planning procedure in the mature principle from the initial application to final establishment has experienced 30 years of time, and has been in practice with the development of our country, so the introduction of the principle of mature city planning in the litigation should be a gradual process. We should have a choice from the United States related to the legal system, and make the appropriate changes according to the specific situation of our country, system related, As soon as possible, we should establish the mature principle suitable for the urban planning litigation of our country.

【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D971.2;DD915

【参考文献】