受欺诈行政行为的违法性和法律责任——以行政机关为视角

本文在简要梳理了法院对受欺诈行政行为的审查后,以行政机关为视角,认为基于相对人欺诈而实施的行政行为具有违法性,但判断导致这种违法性的过错标准应当是法律上对义务的配置,因而行政行为的违法与行政机关的过错并不完全一致;受欺诈行政行为引发的法律责任的确定必须以主观过错和客观违法为要件而不能仅仅以客观违法为要件。本文以此为基础,主张在我国进行四个方面的法制改革,即确立无效行政行为制度,改革仅以违法为构成要件的行政赔偿制度和不以主观过错为要件的行政执法责任制,完善实施授益行政行为的事前和事后程序制度。     

派出机构法律地位及改革思路的若干思考

派出机构是行政机关为更好地实现其对国家事务和社会事务的管理而设立的一种行政组织,遍布行政管理的各个领域。在行政执法、行政复议以及行政诉讼中,派出机构视不同情形具有不同的法律地位。目前派出机构在设置、职能、管理以及监督方面都存在不少问题,需要通过立法加强对其法律规制。     

论行政协议非诉执行制度的优化

行政协议约定内容的设定没有受到立法程序中关于公众参与程序和立法机关备案审查程序的控制,也往往没有协议内容公开和相关程序的要求。相较于行政决定(由行政协议转化而来的除外)作为非诉执行依据的情形,行政协议作为非诉执行依据时更难以解决行政法上的代理人问题,即行政协议中行政主体一方更难以全面地代表公共利益。从现行行政协议非诉执行制度的执行名义、申请程序、审查程序和标准来看,应进一步加强对行政主体一方应代表的公共利益的全面考量和保护,并提出如何完善相关制度的建议。     

论我国行政诉讼和行政复议制度之创新

行政诉讼制度与行政复议制度的冲突,是导致行政诉讼和行政复议不能有效发挥作用的原因之一。建立行政法院,并将行政复议纳入行政诉讼的范畴。由行政法院统一行使对行政相对人的法律救济和对行政主体的法律监督权,可以彻底解决现行制度中存在的矛盾,有利于依法行政和法律监督制度的创新和完善。     

Infusing Public Law into Privatized Welfare: Lawyers,Economists, and the Competing Logics of Administrative Reform

Along with the trend toward “New Public Management” (NPM) and replacing the legal culture of public bureaucracies with market logic through privatization, we are also witnessing instances of “publicization,” the application of public law norms and mechanisms to privatized services. The article explores the role of government lawyers and economists in the dynamics of these administrative reforms. Using a detailed case study of welfare‐to‐work reform in Israel, it shows that the reconstruction of decision making and accountability patterns under NPM was the result of competing efforts by these professional groups to appropriate the “privatized state” to accord with their own institutional logics and interests. While economists advanced a “market” logic, lawyers tried to reproduce the logic of “law” in the post‐bureaucratic setting. The study demonstrates how eventually public law norms were re‐infused into privatized welfare as a result of the increasing institutional power of the lawyers in the regulatory space, along with wider political and social support for the entrenched legalistic mechanisms of the administrative state. However, in addition to the “battle of norms” between lawyers and economists, there were also concessions that led to the redrawing of the boundaries of public law along more functional, rather than formal, lines.     

政府信息公开行政行为司法审查若干问题

政府信息公开行为司法审查与一般行政案件相比,在不少方面具有特殊性:原告资格更加宽泛;被告除了传统的行政机关和法律、法规、规章授权的组织外,公共事业单位也可以成为被告;在起诉期限问题上,难点是确定不履行法定职责行为的起诉期限;在合法性审查方面,行政机关主张政府信息公开例外的,应当承担举证责任;政府信息公开行政案件的裁判方式主要有责令履行、驳回诉讼请求以及确认判决。     

正当程序:滥用程序权的判断标准

在缺乏有关程序的法律依据时,行政机关对程序拥有裁量权。行政机关对程序的裁量违反正当程序原则的,构成滥用职权。正当程序原则的合法地位源自《行政诉讼法》所规定的行政行为不得滥用职权。法院审查行政行为是否存在滥用职权的判断标准之一,是正当程序原则。上述规则的确立,经历了学说借鉴、政策回应、司法实践和法律确认的发展过程。     

Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Does understanding how U.S. Supreme Court justices actually decide cases undermine the institutional legitimacy of the nation's highest court? To the extent that ordinary people recognize that the justices are deciding legal disputes on the basis of their own ideological biases and preferences (legal realism and the attitudinal model), the belief that the justices merely “apply” the law (mechanical jurisprudence and the myth of legality) is difficult to sustain. Although it is easy to see how the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the most unaccountable of all American political institutions, is nurtured by the view that judicial decisionmaking is discretionless and mechanical, the sources of institutional legitimacy under legal realism are less obvious. Here, we demonstrate, using a nationally representative sample, that the American people understand judicial decisionmaking in realistic terms, that they extend legitimacy to the Supreme Court, and they do so under the belief that judges exercise their discretion in a principled and sincere fashion. Belief in mechanical jurisprudence is therefore not a necessary underpinning of judicial legitimacy; belief in legal realism is not incompatible with legitimacy.     

论行政执法中的的法律价值观冲突

行政执法人员的法律价值观是行政执法行为的思想基础和行为依据,直接影响着法律执行的价值状态。行政执法中的法律价值观冲突严重影响着价值观功能的发挥,制约着行政执法的效果。必须强化行政执法人员的法律信仰,确立解决行政执法中法律价值观冲突的基本准则。     

预防化解社会矛盾的治本之策:规范公权力

当前我国社会矛盾纠纷不断增加的主要原因是公权力行使不规范,表现为社会政策和法律制度滞后、政府违法决策处置突发事件不当、行政执法不规范、法律实施不良、行政不作为、信息不公开等,预防化解社会矛盾纠纷的根本出路在于规范公权力行使,包括明确权力边界,规范立法权力,健全程序规则,规范决策和执法行为。由于解决矛盾纠纷主要依赖行政方式,诉讼、复议等法定救济渠道并未充分发挥作用,致使社会矛盾越解决越多,预防化解矛盾纠纷的难度不断加大。为此,应当慎用行政手段,畅通法定救济渠道,有效化解社会矛盾纠纷。     

法治视野下的我国行政机关权力之争

当前,我国行政机关之间的权力争议现象大量存在,由于缺乏制度化、规范化的解决渠道,这些争议往往很难得到及时有效的解决.我们必须不断完善行政法律体系,一方面明确规定各行政机关的权限、尽可能减少行政机关之间权力争议的发生;另一方面通过赋予权力争议机关寻求争议解决的法律责任、建立制度化和规范化的行政系统内部权力争议解决机制、完善行政机关第三人诉讼制度和构建机关诉讼,将行政机关之间的权力争议"绳之以法",以促进法治政府的早日实现.     

基于派出所法律实施的基层社会治理法治化——以浙江K派出所为例

改革开放三十多年来,"严打"、"普法"、"社会治安综合治理"以及"社会管理综合治理"等方式可以看作是国家对基层社会进行治理的探索.十八届四中全会提出"推进基层治理法治化"吹响了全面依法治理基层社会的号角.作为拥有执法人员数量最多的基层执法机构,处在社会矛盾解决第一线的派出所的法律实施依据、方法和技术理应为基层社会治理提供法治资源和法治路径.浙江省K派出所的案例、做法和制度有力地诠释了派出所的法律实施契合基层社会治理.派出所法律实施所展现出来的四大法治功能是推进基层社会治理法治化的桥梁.派出所应从人口管理、行政执法、刑事司法、服务社会、走群众路线、严格遵守程序原则和善于运用非正式制度性因素等方面来为基层社会治理法治化提供理念支持和行动榜样.     

The Economics of Bail Setting and Social Welfare

In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory preference for releasing on bail an accused in custody that has not yet been convicted unless the accused is charged with very serious offence like homicide. Nonetheless, the courts are vested with the powers to decide on the quantum of bail or to even refuse bail outright. To induce the defendant to surrender for trial [Lim, B.-T., & Quah, E. (1998). Economics of bail setting. Bulletin of Economic Research, 257–264] demonstrate that the bail quantum should be based on the expected cost of punishment and the probability of re-arrest if the defendant jumps bail. However, there are costs to society if the defendant absconds, which include, inter alia, the cost of re-arresting the defendant. In this paper, we derive the optimal bail quantum on the assumption that the probability of re-arrest and the penalty for absconding are chosen by the courts whose objective function is to minimize the sum of the expected harm to society and the net costs to law enforcement if the defendant jumps bail. The cost and benefit of being released on bail are examined. A model is proposed which may be useful to the court officials in bail setting as an effective means to secure the defendant's attendance at trial as well as to achieve social equity.     

Unsettled Times for American Families

In Caring for Our Own: Why There Is No Political Demand for New American Social Welfare Rights (2014), Sandra Levitsky reveals how an enduring ideology of family responsibility and a decoupling of social support groups from organized advocacy constrains mass legal mobilization to address long‐term elderly care in the United States. This essay argues that American families have entered an unsettled period linked to social inequality, young adult living arrangements, immigration, and institutional shifts related to LGBTQ families, workplace‐family conflict, and the criminalization of elder abuse. These changes to the family may create the conditions for questioning the ideology of family responsibility and new possibilities for collective action with potentially contradictory meanings and lines of action, including politicization and legal mobilization.     

Liberal Rights versus Islamic Law? The Construction of a Binary in Malaysian Politics

Why are liberal rights and Islamic law understood in binary and exclusivist terms at some moments, but not others? In this study, I trace when, why, and how an Islamic law versus liberal rights binary emerged in Malaysian political discourse and popular legal consciousness. I find that Malaysian legal institutions were hardwired to produce vexing legal questions, which competing groups of activists transformed into compelling narratives of injustice. By tracing the development of this spectacle in the courtroom and beyond, I show how the dueling binaries of liberal rights versus Islamic law, individual rights versus collective rights, and secularism versus religion were contingent on institutional design and political agency, rather than irreconcilable tensions between liberal rights and the Islamic legal tradition in some intrinsic sense. More broadly, the research contributes to our understanding of how popular legal consciousness is shaped by legal mobilization and countermobilization beyond the court of law.     

论立法法对行政法规范冲突的控制及其完善

行政法规范的冲突是困扰行政法治的一大问题 ,《立法法》的颁布施行对于控制行政法规范的冲突具有划时代的意义。然而 ,该法作为一个单一的法典在控制行政法规范冲突方面并不是万能的 ,这既是行政法结构的特殊性决定的 ,又是由《立法法》需要进一步完善的客观事实决定的。为了有效控制行政法规范的冲突 ,全面实现行政法治 ,就必须建立以《立法法》为契机的行政法规范冲突控制机制 ,该机制的基本构成有 :抽象行政行为制度化规则、行政法规范解释制度化规则、行政法适用规范化规则和冲突制裁规则等。     

我国高等学校性质的行政法分析

从民法上来讲 ,高等学校是事业法人 ,而在行政法上 ,我国的公立高等学校是行政主体 ,政府与其的关系是管理与被管理、授权与被授权的关系 ;在高等学校内部 ,其与教师、学生的关系是一种公权力关系、外部关系和契约关系 ,是行政契约的扩张、延伸 ,因此 ,其关系后果是一种行政后果 ,应采取行政复议、行政诉讼之救济途径。     

论行政契约中行政主体之给付不能

在具体行政契约制度中,行政主体的给付不能之类型不应完全仿民法之立法例,而应根据行政主体之特殊性,结合依法行政原则,将其给付不能区分为法律不能与事实不能两大类型。就法律后果而言,因行政主体在行政契约中的优越地位,故应使其负担更多的契约风险,以平衡行政契约双方当事人的利益。     

Applied difficulties of conditions for bail pending trial and institutional solutions

In the domain of bail pending trial in China, there is a deep-cutting tension in bail pending trial between the practical conditions in judicial practice and the legal conditions established by legal authorities. Based on the data and information collected, this article investigates the conditions of bail pending trial in the aspects of rules and facts, and looks for an institutional solution to reconstruct the system of bail pending trial that can realize the interaction between the facts and rules. __________ Translated from Susongfa Lilun Yu Shijian 诉讼法理论与实践 (Theory and Practice of Procedure Law), 2005, (9): 374–382     

英国保释制度及其借鉴意义

在英美法国家刑事诉讼中 ,保释是被逮捕人或者被羁押人的一项重要诉讼权利。其中 ,英国的保释制度历史最为悠久 ,立法最为完善。本文对英国保释制度的历史沿革和基本内容进行了考察 ,提出了借鉴英国保释制度 ,完善我国取保候审制度的若干建议