行政协议判断标准之重构——以“行政法上权利义务”为核心

发布时间：2019-01-22 13:19

【摘要】：虽然最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第11条对行政协议作出了界定与列举,却仍未对行政协议的判断提出明确的标准。通过对目前已有的理论、规范与案例进行整理,可观察到诸如承包、租赁合同、补偿协议、政府采购合同、政府特许经营协议、国有自然资源使用权出让合同、和解协议等在不同类型的行政协议中,行政权的表现形式不同,导致行政权的"浓度"亦有所不同。通过对各类行政协议中行政权成分对"追根溯源",可发现其均指向"行政法上权利义务"这一迥异于已有理论通说的判断标准。在界定是否为行政协议时,需通过三个层次进行判断:(1)协议中权利义务所包含的具体内容;(2)协议中权利义务的来源;(3)行政机关所享有的权利中是否有部分可能质变为行政权。
[Abstract]:Although Article 11 of the Supreme people's Court defines and enumerates the administrative agreement in the interpretation of some issues concerning the application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the people's Republic of China, it has not yet put forward a clear standard for judging the administrative agreement. By sorting out existing theories, norms and cases, we can observe such as contracting, leasing contracts, compensation agreements, government procurement contracts, government franchise agreements, and contracts for the transfer of the right to use state-owned natural resources. In different types of administrative agreements, the different forms of administrative power lead to different "concentration" of administrative power. By tracing the source of administrative power in various kinds of administrative agreements, we can find that all of them point to "rights and obligations in administrative law", which is quite different from the standard of judgment of existing theories. When defining whether the agreement is an administrative agreement, it is necessary to pass three levels of judgment: (1) the specific content of the rights and obligations contained in the agreement; (2) the source of the rights and obligations in the agreement; (3) whether some of the rights enjoyed by administrative organs may be qualitatively transformed into executive powers.
【作者单位】：浙江工商大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】