宏观调控行为效力的法律探析

发布时间：2018-03-11 01:32

  本文选题：宏观调控行为　切入点：宏观调控行为效力　出处：《山东大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：宏观调控行为效力理论研究具有重要的理论与实践价值。宏观调控行为的效力是宏观调控行为的生命线,涉及宏观调控行为的成立、实施、可诉性等多方面问题,对宏观调控行为的效力进行研究不仅有助于加深对宏观调控行为相关范畴的理解,更有利于实现宏观调控的法治化。国际金融危机的再次发生以及国内房地产市场在调控中波动跳弹等社会经济现实背景,要求提高宏观调控行为的有效性,尽快完善宏观调控行为效力实现机制。加强宏观调控行为效力理论的研究,是实现这一目标的必要条件。目前学界有关宏观调控行为效力的研究匮乏且明显滞后,表明就此进行专项研究的迫切性。 本文着眼于基础性和系统性,就宏观调控行为效力研究设定的基本思路是,在界定宏观调控行为的基础上，对宏观调控行为的效力进行延展性研究,明确宏观调控行为的效力基础、效力内容、效力范围、效力形态以及可诉性问题,以期形成对宏观调控行为效力问题相对完整的认知。 对宏观调控行为效力的研究以宏观调控行为的正确界定为前提。学界对宏观调控行为的模糊认知,诸如将宏观调控行为与宏观调控利宏观调控权村I混同，直接导致了对宏观调控行为性质的认识不清,造成对宏观调控行为的国家行为、行政行为、抽象行政行为、决策行为等多种定性。实际上作为宏观调控法的重要范畴,宏观调控行为是以宏观调控为意思表示的单方法律行为。它是宏观调控所决之“策”,是连接宏观调控决策阶段与宏观调控执行阶段的纽带。所以宏观调控行为的直接行为对象是宏观调控执行主体,宏观调控受体只有在宏观调控行为以法律形式做出时才是宏观调控行为的直接行为对象。宏观调控行为只是国家宏观调控活动的重要组成部分,国家对宏观调控权的运用行为也并不都表现为宏观调控行为。 宏观调控的正当性与必要性及其现代性和公共物品属性解释了宏观调控权作为一种独立的“权力”存在的内在合理性与外在合理性。法律对宏观调控、宏观调控权以及宏观调控主体具体授权的不同层面的规定则承认了宏观调控权源的合法性。宏观调控权源的合理性与宏观调控权源的合法性共同奠定了宏观调控行为的效力基础,并进而决定了宏观调控行为效力的特定性。即以公法行为为效力载体,以宏观调控权为效力来源的宏观调控行为的效力不同于一般的法律效力、民事法律行为的效力、行政行为的效力，而在效力内容、效力范围、效力形态等多方面都呈现出自身的特殊性。 宏观调控行为的效力内容为本文所重点关注。作为公法行为,宏观调控行为的效力内容与行政行为类似,但不包括执行力。且二者在公定力、确定力和拘束力方面的具体表观也不一致。首先,追求实质公平、利共赢,以国家机关为直接行为对象的宏观调控行为不会造成公权对么权的损害。所以不同于采取有限公定力说的行政行为,宏观调控行为的公定力具有完全性。其次,由于宏观调控行为涉及和利益更为重大、调控的对象更具不确定性，它的形式确定力比行政行为的更强，而实质确定力则弱一些。再次,学界对执行力的过度关注导致执行力的内涵外延不断扩大,拘束力内容被架空。实质上,执行力是保障行为内容得到遵守的力,其重点在于“保障”而非“遵守”。强调行为对象遵行为内容是拘束力的任务,就像司法判决的拘束力也体现为对法院以后判决的准绳效力一样，自行执行为更多体现的是拘束力的作用效果。因此宏观调控行为要求相应的国家机关主体遵守宏观调控法，履行宏观调控行为设定的各项任务与职责,是宏观调控行为拘束力的体现。执行力“保障”特点要求执行力必须以强制性为特征，并且这种“保障”的力因可以从其他途径获得而不被所有的行为具有,内部行政行为和抽象行政行为等内部规范即是如此。所以宏观调控行为作为内在规范本质上不具有执行力。 宏观调控行为的效力范围根据行为手段的不同而呈现出不同特点。总体上看，它在时间效力上生效更及时，，在空间效力范围更广，管辖权冲突和区际冲突更明显，在对人效力上更强角色定位。宏观调控行为具有完全的公定力,其成立要件与生效要件相同,不存在效力不发生的问题,因而宏观凋控行为不存在无效的效力形态。宏观调控行为内在的复杂特征，本质上的内部规范性质决定宏观调控行为不具有可诉性，只有宏观调控主体才能决定宏观调控行为的失效。但宏观调控行为的不可诉并不等于宏观调控法的不可诉。宏观调控法可以通过规范宏观调控行为的构成要件来实现宏观调控的法治化。即法院可以通过判断宏观高调控行为的主体是否合格、行为表现是否规范、决策程序是否合法等标准来决定行为是否构成宏观调控行为,从而进一步影响宏观调控行为主体的行为效力。而对于同样是对宏观调控权运用的宏观调控执行行为则可以根据其不同性质,分别由行政法、民法、刑法等法律予以规范。从而形成对宏观调控权运用的全面法律规制，实现宏观调控法治化。
[Abstract]:It has important theoretical and practical value of theoretical research on the validity of macro-control action. The validity of macro-control action is the lifeline of the macro-control behavior, set up, involving the macro-control behavior, justiciability and so on, to study on the effect of macro-control behavior not only helps to deepen the understanding of the category of macro-control behavior that is more conducive to the realization of the macro-control. The international financial crisis happening again and the domestic real estate market fluctuations in the regulation of the social and economic background liking, requirements to improve the effectiveness of macro-control behavior, improve macro-control effect realization mechanism. As soon as possible to strengthen macro-control behavior on the validity of the theory, is a necessary condition to achieve this objective. The present research on macro-control action validity is lack and lag. This special research shows that the forced Tangency.
This paper focuses on the basic and systematic, the macro-control behavior effect the basic thought of setting is based on defining the macro-control behavior, ductility on the validity of macro-control action, effective foundation, clear macro-control action validity content, scope of validity, validity form and actionable. In order to form a relatively complete knowledge of macro-control action validity.
Research on the validity of macro-control action to macro-control behavior is the premise of the correct definition of academia. Fuzzy knowledge of macro-control action, such as macro-control behavior and macro-control and the macro-control power village I confusion, led directly to the understanding of the nature of the macro-control behavior is not clear, cause behavior, national macro-control behavior administrative behavior, abstract administrative behavior, decision-making behavior and other qualitative. In fact, as an important category of macro-control law, macro-control is to macro-control for unilateral legal acts of meaning. It is determined by the macro-control policy, is connected with the macro-control decision-making stage and macro-control implementation stage so the link. The direct object of behavior of the macro-control action is the macro-control executive body, macro-control macro-control action made only in the receptor in the form of law is the macro-control behavior The behavior of macro regulation is only an important part of the national macro regulation and control activities. The state's application of macro control right is not all about macro control behavior.
The macro-control of the legitimacy and necessity of modernity and the attribute of public goods explains the macro-control power as an independent "power" the inherent rationality and external rationality. The law of macro-control, macro-control power and regulation regulation subject specific authorization is not at the same level, recognize the legitimacy of the macro-control power source. The rationality and legitimacy of the macro-control power source of the macro-control power source together laid the foundation of validity of macro-control action, and then determine the specific validity of macro-control action. The behavior of public law for the effect of carrier effect with the macro-control power as the source of the validity of macro-control action is different from the general the legal effect of civil legal law, the validity of administrative act, in effect, scope of validity, validity form and other aspects has its own particularity.
The content of the validity of macro-control action is the focus of this paper. As the content of the validity of law, administrative action and macro-control behavior similar to, but not including the execution. And the two in the de facto force, determine the specific force and binding force are not consistent. First of all, the pursuit of substantive justice, benefit and win-win. The state organ for the purpose of macro-control will not directly cause public behavior object damage to the private right. It is different from the administrative actions of the limited determination theory, the macro-control behavior of the public force is complete. Secondly, due to the macro-control behavior and interests is more important, the object of regulation more uncertainty, it determine the form of force is stronger than the administrative action and determine the force is weak. The essence of academic circles again, excessive focus on the execution of the resulting connotation execution continues to expand, the binding force is essentially empty frame. That execution is the guarantee behavior content being observed, with its emphasis on "security" rather than "obey". Emphasize the content object behavior is the binding behavior compliance task, the binding force as judicial judgment also manifested the criterion validity judgment of the court after the same, the effect of self implementation is more reflected. Force. The macro-control Act requires corresponding state organs to obey macro-control law, fulfill all the tasks and responsibilities set the macro-control behavior, is the embodiment of the macro-control behavior binding force. The execution of the "security" characteristic requirements of execution must be characterized by mandatory, and the "security" power from the other access without being with all behaviors, internal and abstract administrative acts such as internal standard is. So macro-control action as an internal standard in essence It does not have the power of execution.
瀹忚�傝皟鎺ц�屼负鐨勬晥鍔涜寖鍥存牴鎹�琛屼负鎵嬫�电殑涓嶅悓鑰屽憟鐜板嚭涓嶅悓鐗圭偣.鎬讳綋涓婄湅,瀹冨湪鏃堕棿鏁堝姏涓婄敓鏁堟洿鍙婃椂,鍦ㄧ┖闂存晥鍔涜寖鍥存洿骞

本文编号：1596010