中国行政公益诉讼的法理检视

发布时间：2018-05-13 17:13

本文选题：行政公益诉讼 + 法律监督　；参考：《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2017年06期

【摘要】：近10余年来,无论是学界还是实务界皆对公益诉讼这个命题关注有加,尤其是对行政公诉,大量研究成果系统性地介绍了西方国家的行政公诉机制。但是,中国的检察机关从权力性质上讲是司法机关,从功能定位上说是宪法所专门规设的法律监督机关。如果置法治语境于不顾,强行赋予检察机关以不符宪法定位的公益诉讼人身份,不仅存在着难以克服的滥诉风险,而且由此带入行政公益诉讼程序中还会引发诉讼本身的异变,继而生成一系列不利于公益保护的负面效应。然而这并非检察机关刻意为之,归根到底还是法律监督疲软无力的问题。所以,为了行政公益诉讼的良好实施还需回到原点,在司法改革的背景下进一步完善法律监督机制及其运行架构。
[Abstract]:In the past 10 years, both academic and practical circles have paid more attention to the proposition of public interest litigation, especially to administrative public prosecution. A large number of research results have systematically introduced the mechanism of administrative prosecution in western countries. However, the procuratorial organ in China is the judicial organ in terms of its power nature, and the legal supervision organ specially stipulated by the Constitution in terms of its function. If we ignore the context of the rule of law and impose upon the procuratorial organs the status of public interest litigants that are not in accordance with the constitutional orientation, there is not only the insurmountable risk of overcharging, but also the different changes of the litigation itself brought into the administrative public interest litigation proceedings. Then produce a series of negative effects that are not conducive to public welfare protection. But this is not a deliberate prosecution, in the final analysis is weak legal supervision. Therefore, in order to implement the administrative public interest litigation well, we should go back to the origin, and further improve the legal supervision mechanism and its operating structure under the background of judicial reform.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【基金】：最高人民检察院检察理论研究课题“检察独立与惩戒机制法治化研究”(GJ2015C31) 江苏省灌云县人民检察院委托研究课题“检察机关对行政执法的监督”
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】