行政决策过程中专家咨询的法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 07:47

本文选题：专家咨询 + 行政决策过程　；参考：《南京师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：专家咨询是指专家利用自身特有专业知识和技能,在政府部门进行决策的过程中,中立地提供专业化、科学化的咨询论证,以提升政府决策的科学化,保障决策的民主化。虽然专家咨询已广泛应用于社会生活各个领域,也深入至行政活动多个阶段,但由于我国理论界和实务界对此关注时间不长,在法律规范和实践层面还存在诸多不完善的地方。行政决策过程中,专家咨询主要存在五方面的不足：第一,专家组成员选择具有随意性。行政机关在选择专家时拥有几乎不受限制的权力,为其左右专家咨询结果提供可趁之机。同时专家自身也存在不足,这就使专家组的质量得不到有效保障。第二,专家咨询范围不确定。作为决策程序,专家咨询是否应用以及具体应用范围往往由行政机关说了算,很难保障专家咨询在决策过程中的应用。此外,由于技术问题与价值问题易混淆,专家往往“越位”对其不具优势的价值问题展开咨询,误导最终决策。第三,专家咨询意见公布滞后,不透明。我国现有规范并未对行政决策过程中专家咨询意见是否对外公布进行明确规定,实践中多采取“不公开”做法,这就为决策机构逃避公众监督提供可能。第四,专家责任追究机制不健全。现有专家咨询“无责任风险”状态使专家和政府可以利用这一情况规避内外责任,导致责任追究落空。第五,专家合法权益保障措施不完善。专家咨询在行政决策过程中地位不明确,无法保障其自身的话语权和知情权。另外,大部分规定中也并无相应奖励及救济措施保障专家合法权益。在我国,以上五方面出现的问题已严重影响专家咨询功能的发挥。本文通过分析专家咨询在行政决策过程中的法律性质,最终确定其民营化类型之一——专家参与的法律属性。根据其具有的特点,针对上述五方面暴露的问题提出具体解决措施。第一,设立专家库,完善其运作模式,限制行政机关自由裁量权。以“均衡性”为标准,实现专家组在知识和利益两方面的平衡。第二,明确专家咨询作为行政决策法定程序的地位,确定专家咨询的应用范围以及专家咨询的具体内容。第三,借鉴美国关于行政过程中信息公开的相关规定,明确行政机关对专家咨询意见公开的义务,从遴选专家到专家最终意见进行全过程公开,同时要求决策机构对专家及公众的意见进行及时回应,追究不公开责任。第四,追究专家的内部责任,监督专家开展中立咨询。与此同时,区分政府及专家的责任,防止相互利用,推卸责任。第五,一方面为专家充权,保障其在行政决策中的参与权和知情权。另一方面,建立相应的激励机制,为专家参与咨询提供物质支持。此外,为专家咨询提供保护自身合法权益的救济途径。
[Abstract]:Expert consultation means that experts use their own specialized knowledge and skills to provide professional and scientific advice and argumentation neutral in the process of government decision-making in order to promote the scientific nature of government decisions and to guarantee the democratization of decision-making. Although expert consultation has been widely used in various fields of social life and has reached many stages of administrative activities, it has not been paid much attention to by the theorists and practitioners of our country for a long time. There are still many imperfections in the legal norms and practice. In the process of administrative decision-making, there are five main deficiencies in expert consultation: first, the selection of expert group members is arbitrary. The agency has almost unlimited authority to select experts, providing an opportunity for them to influence expert advice. At the same time, the experts themselves also have shortcomings, which makes the quality of the expert group can not be effectively guaranteed. Second, the scope of expert advice is uncertain. As a decision-making procedure, the application and scope of expert consultation are often decided by the administrative authorities. It is difficult to guarantee the application of expert consultation in the decision-making process. In addition, because technical problems and value problems are easily confused, experts often "offside" to its non-advantage of the value of the consultation, mislead the final decision. Third, the publication of expert advice is delayed and opaque. The existing norms of our country have not clearly stipulated whether the expert advice in the process of administrative decision-making is published to the public, and in practice it is more likely to adopt the practice of "not making public", which provides the possibility for decision-making organizations to evade public supervision. Fourth, the expert responsibility investigation mechanism is not perfect. The existing expert consultation "no responsibility risk" state allows experts and governments to take advantage of this situation to avoid internal and external responsibilities, leading to failure of accountability. Fifth, the legal rights and interests of experts protection measures are not perfect. The position of expert consultation in the process of administrative decision is not clear, which can not guarantee its right to speak and know. In addition, most provisions also do not have corresponding incentives and relief measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of experts. In our country, the above five problems have seriously affected the exertion of the expert consultation function. By analyzing the legal nature of the expert consultation in the administrative decision-making process, this paper finally determines the legal attribute of the expert participation, one of its privatization types. According to its characteristics, the paper puts forward concrete measures to solve the problems exposed in the above five aspects. First, set up a pool of experts, improve its operating mode, and limit the discretion of administrative organs. The balance of knowledge and interests of the expert group is realized according to the criterion of "equilibrium". Secondly, the status of expert consultation as a statutory procedure for administrative decision-making should be clarified, and the scope of application of expert consultation and the specific content of expert consultation should be determined. Third, draw lessons from the relevant provisions of the United States on the disclosure of information in the administrative process, clarify the obligation of the administrative organs to make the opinions of experts public, and make the whole process public from the selection of experts to the final opinions of experts. At the same time, policy-making agencies are required to respond to the opinions of experts and the public in a timely manner. Fourth, investigate experts' internal responsibility and supervise experts to carry out neutral consultation. At the same time, distinguish between the responsibilities of the government and experts, prevent mutual use, shirking responsibility. Fifth, on the one hand, the right of experts to participate in administrative decisions and the right to know. On the other hand, establish the corresponding incentive mechanism to provide material support for experts to participate in the consultation. In addition, to provide expert advice to protect their legitimate rights and interests of relief.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】