论我国的行政裁量基准制度

发布时间：2019-01-13 08:56

【摘要】：裁量是行政执法的灵魂,合理的行政裁量是依法行政的应有之义和必然要求,在依法行政、建设法治政府的社会背景下,合理规范行政裁量权的行使是全面依法治国的必然要求和有力保障。行政裁量基准可以使行政机关更加合理地行使行政执法权,不仅能够控制裁量权的滥用和异化,还可以防止裁量权的死板和僵化,同时还可以弥补法律的不足。行政裁量基准“行政自制”和“规则之治”的属性决定了其对行政主体、行政相对人和法院产生约束力,使行政执法人员的执法标准更加明确,责任更加清晰;使相对人对规范自己的行为有了更详细的标准,同时还可以监督行政机关作出的裁量是否符合裁量基准;同时法律也赋予了法院审查裁量基准合法性的权利和义务,有效控制了裁量权的不规范使用。中央和地方都在不断的推进和完善裁量基准制度,裁量基准涉及领域众多,规制类型也在不断拓展。但是在行政裁量基准实施以来,也暴露出许多的问题,比如裁量基准名称不规范,内容存在重复和抄袭,随意逸脱裁量基准,制定主体不统一,适用范围不平衡,程序不规范,监督控制不到位,这些问题的出现是裁量基准制度在初步发展中在所难免的。裁量基准制度的完善需要符合合法行政、合理行政、信赖保护、权责统一、程序正当的法律原则,还应当借鉴域外的有益经验,统一设定裁量基准文件的名称,实现裁量基准名称的规范化;行政机关要“因地制宜”制定适合本地、本部门的裁量基准,从而优化裁量基准的制定内容;控制逸脱技术的使用,裁量基准的逸脱必须要有正当理由且符合法定程序;国务院部门和省级政府制定裁量基准的原则和指导性意见,明确制定主体的职权范围,具体的裁量基准由省级政府部门、市县级政府和部门制定;扩大裁量基准的适用范围,不能再任行政处罚“一枝独秀”,要多种规制类型并头发展;在制定裁量基准的过程中要吸收公众参与和公开制度,让裁量基准更加公开透明,更加民主;裁量基准制度的实施离不开全面有力的监督,所以应当加强立法、行政和司法三方面的监督控制,使裁量基准的制定和运行更加平稳顺畅。
[Abstract]:Discretion is the soul of administrative law enforcement, and reasonable administrative discretion is the due meaning and necessary requirement of administration by law. Under the social background of administration by law and building a government ruled by law, Reasonably standardizing the exercise of administrative discretion is the inevitable requirement and powerful guarantee of governing the country according to law. The administrative discretion standard can make the administrative organ exercise the administrative law enforcement power more reasonably, not only can control the abuse and alienation of the discretion, but also can prevent the rigidity and rigidity of the discretion, at the same time, it can make up for the deficiency of the law. The attribute of administrative discretion standard "administrative self-control" and "rule of rule" determines its binding force on administrative subject, administrative relative person and court, which makes the law enforcement standard of administrative law enforcement personnel clearer and the responsibility clearer; Make the relative person have more detailed standard to standardize their own behavior, at the same time can also supervise whether the discretion made by the administrative organ conforms to the standard of discretion; At the same time, the law also gives the court the right and obligation to review the legality of the standard of discretion, and effectively controls the irregular use of the discretion. The central and local governments are constantly promoting and perfecting the system of discretion benchmark, which involves many fields, and the types of regulation are also expanding. However, since the implementation of the administrative discretion standard, it has also exposed many problems, such as the non-standard name of the discretion benchmark, duplication and plagiarism of the content, random escape of the discretion standard, the disunity of the main body, the imbalance of the scope of application, and the non-standard procedure. Supervision and control are not in place, these problems are inevitable in the initial development of the discretionary benchmark system. The perfection of the standard system of discretion should conform to the legal principles of legal administration, reasonable administration, trust protection, unity of power and responsibility, due process, and should draw lessons from the beneficial experience of foreign countries and unify the name of the standard document of discretion. Realize the standardization of the reference name of the discretion; The administrative organ should "adapt to the local conditions" to formulate the discretion standard for the local department, thus optimize the content of the discretion standard formulation, control the use of escape technology, the discretion standard escape must be justified and in accordance with the legal procedures; The principles and guiding opinions of the department of the State Council and the provincial government to formulate the standard of discretion, and the terms of reference of the main body shall be clearly defined, and the specific standards of discretion shall be formulated by the provincial government departments, the municipal and county governments and the departments; Expanding the scope of application of the discretion standard, can no longer let the administrative punishment "alone", to a variety of regulatory types and development; In the process of developing discretionary benchmarks, public participation and open system should be involved in order to make the discretionary benchmarks more transparent and democratic; The implementation of the discretionary benchmark system can not be separated from comprehensive and effective supervision, so we should strengthen the supervision and control in the legislative, administrative and judicial aspects so as to make the formulation and operation of the discretion datum more smooth and smooth.
【学位授予单位】：河北经贸大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.1

【相似文献】