行政问责过程中的领导责任追究问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-01 22:26

本文选题：行政问责 + 领导责任　；参考：《南京大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：行政问责在我国已经不是一个新鲜概念,领导人作为行政问责主要对象,也是社会公众最为关注的对象,因此有必要弄清我国行政问责实践中对领导的问责情况,从领导责任入手可以涉及到行政问责的各个要素,把握领导责任追究的现实情况。绪论部分阐述了选题的原因、意义以及学界研究现状。指出行政问责在我国被广泛使用的现实情况以及学界对其的研究热情,学界对领导责任的研究还十分有限,对于一些核心问题,还没有清晰的回答。正文分为四个部分:第一部分是对领导责任的内涵、特点与理论、现实基础的论述。对领导责任的概念进行梳理,分清第一性的领导责任和第二性的领导责任,明确本文所指领导责任是第二性的责任。总结领导责任的基本特性,指出领导责任是一种内部责任,既有直接责任也有间接责任,是个人责任而非集体责任,并且因其社会回应功能而具有政治责任色彩。其后对追究领导责任的原因进行分析,指出科层制理论、行政伦理理论和角色理论是领导责任追究的理据所在,我国之所以如此热衷追究领导责任的现实背景是将领导责任追究作为获取合法性的手段,并且以此为契机构建一种新型的负责任的行政文化。第二部分是对领导责任追究实践进行考察,发现问题。首先以实践中的重大事故为例,对这些事故调查报告中涉及到的领导进行分析,了解我国领导责任追究的总体概况和特点,指出在我国领导责任追究实践中存在三个难点:领导人在行政层级中的身份相对性导致的身份双重性、如何平衡问责的社会回应功能和责任追究的合理科学以及间接责任认定困难。然后分析了实践中出现的四个问题:同类事故问责的领导级别不同、追责方式使用混乱、回应式问责、被追责领导复出。由实践中的问题发问这种实践中的追责乱象是否与我国的制度规范有关。第三部分考察我国有关领导责任追究的制度规范,分析其是否导致了实践中的问责乱象。首先从整体上把握现有的制度文本形式,指出现有规范设置的责任追究事由繁多,在责任追究中有对过错的考量,对结果原则单独适用有所限制。同时,这些制度规范还存在追责情形模糊不清、追责程序不完善、归责原则不清晰等问题,导致了实践中在寻求制度依据时无所适从,随意问责。第四部分在前文的基础上提出对完善领导责任追究的思考。首先是完善制度规范,通过分散式立法方式补足现有的制度规范中存在的漏洞,并且地方规范要进行梳理,对违反上位法的内容应及时清理。其次是在领导责任追究中要坚持依法追责、平等原则、比例原则和公开原则。最后,要形成以过错责任为核心的归责体系,保证责任追究要实现过错与结果相适应。结语部分重申了领导责任研究的重要性及涉及到的核心问题,指出如何保证领导责任追究的科学性,如何完善相关立法等问题还有很大的研究空间。
[Abstract]:Administrative accountability is not a new concept in our country. As the main object of administrative accountability, leaders are the most concerned objects of the public. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the accountability of the leadership in the practice of administrative accountability in our country. Starting with the responsibility of leadership, we can involve all the elements of administrative accountability and grasp the current of the accountability of leadership. The introduction part expounds the reasons for the topic, the significance and the research status of the academic circles. It points out the fact that the administrative accountability is widely used in our country and the enthusiasm of the academic circles on it, the research on the leadership responsibility in the academic circles is very limited, and there are no clear answers to some core issues. The main body is divided into four parts: the first part It is a discussion of the connotation, the characteristics and the theory and the realistic basis of the leadership responsibility, combing the concept of leadership responsibility, sorting out the leadership responsibility of the first nature and the leadership responsibility of the second sex, and making clear that the responsibility of the leadership is the second responsibility. The responsibility also has the indirect responsibility, it is personal responsibility rather than collective responsibility, and has the political responsibility color because of its social response function. Then it analyzes the reasons for the accountability of leadership, points out the theory of bureaucracy, the administrative ethics theory and the role theory is the reason for the investigation of leadership responsibility. The realistic background of guiding responsibility is to take the leadership accountability as a means of obtaining legitimacy, and to build a new and responsible administrative culture as a turning point. The second part is the investigation of the practice of leading responsibility investigation and the discovery of the problems. First, the major accidents in practice are taken as an example, and the leaders involved in the investigation report of these accidents are involved. Through the analysis of the general situation and characteristics of the leadership accountability investigation in China, it points out that there are three difficulties in the practice of leading responsibility investigation in China: the identity duality caused by the identity of leaders in the administrative level, how to balance the social response function of the accountability and the reasonable science of accountability and the identification of the indirect responsibility. It is difficult. Then it analyzes four problems in practice: the leadership level of the same kind of accident is different, the way of accountability is used in confusion, the response type of accountability, the responsible leadership is returned. The question of the practice is asked whether this practice is related to the regulations of our country. The third part examines the investigation of leadership responsibility in our country. The system norms, the analysis of whether it leads to the problem of accountability in practice. First, the overall grasp of the existing system text form, refers to the emergence of a standard setting of the responsibility of various reasons, in the accountability of the fault of the consideration, the results of the principle of individual application limits. At the same time, these system norms still have a blur of responsibility. The fourth part, on the basis of the previous article, puts forward the thinking of improving the accountability of the leadership on the basis of the previous article. The first is to improve the system norms and complement the existing system norms through the decentralized legislative mode. Loopholes, and local norms should be combed, the content of violation of the upper law should be cleaned up in time. Secondly, in the investigation of leadership responsibility, we should adhere to the responsibility of law, the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality and the principle of public. Finally, we should form the system of liability with the responsibility of fault as the core, and ensure that the investigation of responsibility should be adapted to the fault and the result. It reiterates the importance of the research on leadership responsibility and the core issues involved, and points out that there is still a lot of research space on how to guarantee the scientific nature of the accountability of leadership and how to improve the relevant legislation.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D262.3

【参考文献】