美国行政诉讼中的成熟原则研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 02:22

本文选题：成熟原则 + 执行前审查　；参考：《郑州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在行政诉讼中,不是任何行政行为都可以被法院审查的,即便行政行为在法院的受案范围之内,只要其尚处于中间阶段或者预备阶段,没有产生实际影响,那么法院进行司法审查的时机也依然未成熟。行政成熟原则是在美国的判例法体系中确立起来的,它的目的在于避免法院提供咨询性意见,僭越行政权。成熟原则的发展与法官的个人意志、特定时期的历史事实分不开,实质上反映出来的是司法权与行政权之间的博弈。在成熟原则的发展历程中,法院最初保持着司法谦抑态度,对行政权给予了高度尊重,除非是特定的执行案件,否则法院一般不会对规则进行执行前审查。1967年,最高法院在雅培案中对成熟原则进行了重塑,确立了两部制的成熟性判断标准——适当性要素和困难要素。至此,对行政规则的执行前审查不再是法院的禁区,并在之后的案件中得以不断的遵循。像很多原则一样,成熟原则也是具有“模糊性”的。这种模糊性首先表现在判断标准方面,对于推迟审查所带来的困难的程度,不同的法官有不同的理解;对于法律是否排除了执行前的审查,同一个法院会出作出不同的解释。模糊性还表现在成熟原则与其他审查要件之间的关系上。成熟原则与原告资格是如此的相像,以至于它们在某些案件中可以互相代替;穷尽救济原则与最终性原则都关注的是行政程序的发展阶段,相同的功能使它们难以彼此区分开来;而在雅培案中,成熟原则又吸收了最终性原则的判断要素,使它们也难解难分。至此,成熟原则与其他原则之间的联系使规则体系充满了错乱,细致的区分是艰难甚或徒劳无功的。或许最重要的不在于非此即彼的强行分离,而是找到它们各自的适用重点。成熟原则在美国行政诉讼体系中得到了长足发展,自从王名扬教授在其《美国行政法》一书中对成熟原则予以了介绍后,国内学者立足于该书的理论知识开始研究在我国行政诉讼中适用成熟原则的问题。有些学者认为,在我国的司法实践中存在适用成熟性判断的案件,而根据行政诉讼法的解释“实际影响”标准是对成熟原则的移植,因此未来我国行政诉讼法的发展应当继续深入挖掘成熟原则的价值,完善行政诉讼法体系。由于众多学者的认识仅仅是基于王名扬教授的著作,资料来源单一,同时他们没有继续跟踪成熟原则在美国的发展,因此,这些论断面临着理论根基不牢,未能跟上时代发展等问题。对成熟原则的研究还需更多的努力。
[Abstract]:In administrative litigation, not any administrative action can be examined by the court. Even if the administrative act is within the scope of the court, as long as it is still in the middle stage or in the preparatory stage, there is no actual influence, then the time of judicial review is still unripe. The principle of administrative maturity is the case law in the United States. The purpose of the system is to prevent the court from providing advisory opinions and overstepping the administrative power. The development of the principle of maturity is inseparable from the individual will of the judge, the historical facts of a particular period, and the game between the judicial power and the administrative power in essence. In the course of the development of the mature principle, the Court maintained the judiciary at first. Modest attitude, high respect for administrative power, unless it is a specific execution case, otherwise the court will generally not review the rules before the implementation of the.1967 years, the Supreme Court remolded the principle of maturity in the Abbott case and established the standard of maturity of the two system - the elements of appropriateness and the difficult elements. The pre execution review is no longer the court's forbidden area, and it is constantly followed in the subsequent cases. Like many principles, the maturity principle is also "fuzzy". This ambiguity is first expressed in the judgment standard, with different understandings of the different judges for the difficulties brought about by the postponement of the review; Whether the prior review is excluded, the same court will make a different explanation. The ambiguity is also manifested in the relationship between the maturity principle and the other elements of the review. The maturity principle is so similar to the plaintiff's qualification that they can replace each other in some cases; the exhaustion principle and the ultimate principle are all concerned. In the development phase of the administrative procedure, the same functions make it difficult to distinguish them from each other; in the Abbott case, the maturity principle absorbs the judgment elements of the ultimate principle and makes them difficult to solve. At this point, the relationship between the principle of maturity and other principles makes the rule system full of confusion, and the meticulous distinction is difficult or futile. Perhaps the most important thing is not the strong separation between the other and the other, but the focus of their respective application. The maturity principle has made great progress in the American administrative litigation system. Since professor Wang Mingyang introduced the principle of maturity in his "American administrative law", the domestic scholars are based on the theoretical knowledge of the book. Research on the application of maturity principle in administrative litigation in China. Some scholars believe that there is a case of maturity judgment in our judicial practice, and the standard of "actual influence" according to the interpretation of administrative procedure law is the transplant of the mature principle, so the development of the law of administrative procedure in our country should be further developed and mature in the future. The value of the principle and the perfection of the system of administrative procedure law. Since many scholars are only based on Professor Wang Mingyang's work, the sources of information are single, and they do not continue to follow the development of the principle of maturity in the United States. Therefore, these arguments are faced with the problems of the theoretical foundation and the failure to keep up with the development of the times. More effort is needed.

【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D971.2;DD915.4

【相似文献】