权力清单制度研究—以功能主义为视角

发布时间：2018-07-12 21:37

本文选题：功能主义 + 权力清单　；参考：《安徽大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：权力清单不是一个新名词,它已经在全国范围内展开,不仅在省级单位全面铺行,市县联动的权力清单也已经或正在推行。但权力清单到底是什么,我们以什么样的角度去看待权力清单,如何完善权力清单,又如何看待权力清单在司法实践中的适用,这些问题都值得我们去深思。在全面深化改革的中坚期,对权力清单的研究不仅具有理论上的意义,对国家治理体系现代化也有着深刻的现实意义,由此本文选择了一种符合现代化需求、符合行政治理改革的方法论,即功能主义,并在开篇展开了对功能主义论述。虽然目前从表面上看,权力清单已经在全国范围内铺开,从中央到各省市单位,甚至县级单位,都给予了最大的热情和付出,学术界也出现了不少研究权力清单的文章,但是问题仍然存在。首先对权力清单的制度定性就没有形成统一的定论。对权力清单的制度定性是研究权力清单的基础,不仅是对其自身性质的把握,也是区分其他概念的关键所在。文章主要是将各种调整行政权利义务关系的抽象规则进行对比,通过系统的比对,将权力清单定性为行政规则,并以功能主义的角度,在得出定位的基础上论述了权力清单制度的功能,进一步认清权力清单的真谛。其次,各级单位在制定权力清单时没有形成统一的程序。本文以三个典型省份作为案例,发现从清理职权到最终制定完成公布,三个省份在虽然大体流程上出入不大,但在具体细节的处理上各有千秋。基于此,本文在研究权力清单的制定程序时,选择了求同存异的理念,认为根据各地方的经济社会文化发展情况的不同,稍有差异也是合理的。除了外在的制定流程,对制度过程中的内在利益冲突也不可忽视,实际上,完善权力清单的制定程序也是均衡各方利益以达到社会经济和谐发展的目的。再者,目前权力清单的推行仍处于调整和进阶期,司法理论上并没有形成统一的学说,立法上也没有形成规范性指导,但是这并不是说权力清单在司法上毫无应用,相反,在目前的司法实裁判中,权力清单的出现已经不是个案。权力清单兼具规则和自制双重个性,基于此,我们在探讨权力清单与司法审查时,就有必要从权力清单的两种属性出发,即作为审查依据的属性和作为审查对象的属性。文章整理出的29则实践案例,将这29则司法案例分类,在大类中又找出典型案例,试图对权力清单在司法实践中的适用展开实证分析,论述权力清单在司法审查中的标准和强度。权力清单将权力制单晒出,顺应了改革潮流,顺应了政府职能转变的呼吁。本文对权力清单进行研究,以期达到更有力地发挥权力清单推动全面深化改革作用的目的。
[Abstract]:The list of powers is not a new term. It has been carried out all over the country, not only in provincial units, but also in cities and counties. But what is the power list, what kind of angle we treat the power list, how to perfect the power list, and how to look at the application of the power list in judicial practice, these problems are worth our thinking. In the period of deepening the reform in an all-round way, the research on the list of powers is not only of theoretical significance, but also of profound practical significance to the modernization of the national governance system. In line with the methodology of administrative governance reform, that is functionalism, and in the beginning of the discussion of functionalism. Although at present, on the surface, the list of powers has been spread throughout the country, from the central authorities to the provincial and municipal units, and even to the county-level units, they have given their greatest enthusiasm and dedication, and many articles on the power list have also appeared in the academic community. But the problem remains. First of all, there is no unified conclusion on the institutional characterization of the list of powers. The institutional characterization of the list of powers is the basis of studying the list of powers, which is not only the grasp of its own nature, but also the key to distinguish other concepts. This paper compares various abstract rules that regulate the relationship between administrative rights and obligations. Through systematic comparison, the list of powers is characterized as administrative rules, and from the perspective of functionalism, The function of power list system is discussed on the basis of orientation, and the true meaning of power list is recognized. Second, units at all levels in the formulation of the list of powers did not form a unified procedure. This paper takes three typical provinces as a case, and finds that the three provinces have their own characteristics in dealing with the specific details, although there is little difference in the general process between the three provinces from the clean-up authority to the final formulation and publication. Based on this, this paper chooses the idea of seeking common ground while reserving differences when studying the procedure of making lists of powers, and thinks that it is reasonable to have some differences according to the different economic, social and cultural development of different places. In addition to the external formulation process, the internal conflict of interest in the process of the system can not be ignored. In fact, the goal of balancing the interests of all parties to achieve the harmonious development of social economy is to perfect the process of making the list of powers. Moreover, at present, the implementation of the list of powers is still in the period of adjustment and advancement. There is no unified theory in judicial theory or normative guidance in legislation, but this does not mean that the list of powers has no application in the administration of justice. On the contrary, it does not mean that the list of powers has no application in the administration of justice. In the current judicial decision, the emergence of the list of powers is no longer a case. The list of power has both the character of rule and self-control. Therefore, when we discuss the power list and judicial review, we should proceed from the two attributes of power list, that is, the attribute that is the basis of the examination and the attribute of the object of examination. The article collates 29 practical cases, classifies 29 judicial cases, finds out typical cases in large categories, and tries to carry out empirical analysis on the application of power list in judicial practice. This paper discusses the standard and intensity of power list in judicial review. The list of powers reflects the system of power, conforms to the trend of reform and calls for the transformation of government functions. This paper studies the list of powers in order to give full play to the role of the list of powers in promoting the overall deepening of reform.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D630

【相似文献】