论突发公共事件应急决策的法治保障

发布时间：2018-03-25 07:45

  本文选题：突发公共事件　切入点：应急决策　出处：《安徽大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：突发性公共事件的爆发,往往威胁一个国家或地区的公共安全,对人民群众的生产和生活秩序造成极大破坏,政府必须运用行政紧急权力采取有效紧急措施以控制和消除突发事件。应急决策,作为具体性的行政紧急权力,是公共应急管理的最核心环节,一般是在公共危机已经全面爆发或者即将爆发的情况下做出的。危机越是普遍或致命,有效的应急决策就越显得关键。 应急决策相较于常规决策具有明显的权力集中性、扩张性等特点。这些特点使决策主体在进行应急决策活动中,不可避免地可能导致决策主体合法性、非程序性决策等诸多的法律问题。域外英国、美国、加拿大包括日本等发达国家,在危机状态处置中就应急决策的法律保障从实体保障到程序保障方面都积累了较为丰富的立法经验,而我国《突发事件应对法》中,没有对突发公共事件应急决策主体的决策资格、决策范围、决策程序等进行详尽的法律规定,在应对危机中,应急决策主体必然会因法律保障方面的缺失而表现出消极应对心理,对危机的快速有效处置形成掣肘。所以,为有效防范和控制突发公共事件对国家和社会产生的巨大冲击,调整在危机状态下国家权力之间、国家权力与公民权利之间、公民权利之间的各种关系,以有效地应对和化解公共危机,使社会秩序恢复至常态,就必须对我国突发公共事件中应急决策法律保障进行完善。 本文主要通过例证分析法和比较分析法进行论述。文章共分为六个部分,第一部分应急决策的法治定位与类型划分。通过对应急决策的概念进行界定,并根据应急决策在突发事件具体处置工作中所起到的不同作用进行分类；第二部分突发公共事件应急决策的主要法律特征。提出应急决策作为微观性的行政紧急权力,涉及具体行政行为,相比常规决策具有较明显的权力优先性、行为扩张性等特点,在具体运作中必然会涉及到诸多的法律问题,那么,第三部分突发公共事件应急决策存在的主要问题。主要指出应急决策在具体运行中涉及到的诸如决策主体合法性、非程序化决策和违法决策等问题,这些问题的存在在很大程度上阻碍了突发事件的有效处置；第四部分论述应急决策的法治保障。主要对应急决策进行法治保障完善遵循的原则及保障内容进行明确；第五部分应急决策的域外考察与借鉴。通过考察域外应急决策法治保障方面的规定,并与我国的相关法律规定进行分析比较。通过具体法律制度的考察和比较,反思我国应急决策法律保障中存在的不足,这些不足必然使在应对突发事件的应急决策机关因缺乏法律保障而失去其处置权威性,而导致不能有效防范和控制突发事件发生；第六部分我国应急决策法律保障的措施。针对我国突发事件应急决策法律制度中的不足,并对域外发达国家的相关法律制度进行吸收借鉴,提出完善我国应急决策法治保障的具体措施,以有效应对我国突发公共事件的发生。
[Abstract]:The sudden public events often threaten public safety in a country or region, of the people's production and living order caused great destruction, the government must use administrative emergency powers to take effective emergency measures to control and eliminate emergency. Emergency decision, as the specific nature of the administrative emergency power, is the core link of the public emergency management, is usually made in the public crisis has full-blown or imminent situation. The crisis is more general or fatal, effective emergency decision is more crucial.
Compared with the conventional emergency decision decision has a significant concentration of power, characteristics of expansive. These characteristics make the decision-making body in emergency decision-making activities, inevitably may lead to decision-making legitimacy, many legal problems of non procedural decision. The United States, Canada outside the UK, including Japan and other developed countries, in a state of crisis the disposal in emergency decision-making legal protection from the entity security to procedural safeguards has accumulated abundant legislative experience, and China's "Emergency Response Law >, no decision subject to emergency decision decision decision procedure qualification, scope, such as detail and legal provisions, in response to the crisis emergency decision subject, because of the lack of legal protection and the performance of the negative psychological, rapid and effective disposal of crisis constraints. Therefore, in order to effectively prevent and The huge impact control of public emergencies of the state and society, between the adjustment of state power under the crisis state, between state power and civil rights, the relationship between the various rights of citizens, to deal with and resolve the public crisis effectively, make the social order back to normal, it is necessary to perfect the legal protection of public emergencies emergency decision in our country.
In this paper, the main method and comparative analyzed by examples. The article is divided into six parts, the rule of law position and types of the first part of emergency decision. Through defining the concept of emergency decision-making, and classified according to the different role of emergency decision-making plays in specific emergencies disposal work; the main legal features the second part of public emergency decision-making. Put forward emergency decision as the microcosmic of administrative emergency power, relates to the specific administrative act, compared with the conventional power priority decision has obvious characteristics, such as expansive behavior, in the specific operation involves many legal issues, then the main problems of the third part of the public emergency decision. Main points of emergency decision-making in specific operation involved in the decision-making body such as legitimacy, non programmed decision and illegal means 绛栫瓑闂�棰�,杩欎簺闂�棰樼殑瀛樺湪鍦ㄥ緢澶х▼搴︿笂闃荤�嶄簡绐佸彂浜嬩欢鐨勬湁鏁堝�勭疆锛涚��鍥涢儴鍒嗚�鸿堪搴旀，

本文编号：1662177