發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-26 22:38

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 濫用職權(quán) 司法審查 行政職權(quán)　出處：《北方工業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：服務(wù)型政府建設(shè)對(duì)政府的各項(xiàng)行政行為提出了更高的要求。權(quán)力具有天然的腐敗性,不可避免的會(huì)發(fā)生對(duì)行政職權(quán)的濫用。如何停止政府濫用職權(quán),為受侵害的行政相對(duì)人提供救濟(jì),是我們所要面對(duì)并加以解決的問(wèn)題。本文欲從如下幾個(gè)部分進(jìn)行論述。首先是進(jìn)行整體概述,主要是對(duì)濫用職權(quán)及其相關(guān)的概念進(jìn)行厘清。任何一項(xiàng)研究必需要對(duì)所研究的對(duì)象有清晰的認(rèn)識(shí),否則會(huì)導(dǎo)致整個(gè)研究方向的偏離,以及內(nèi)容的含混不清。與濫用職權(quán)相關(guān)的概念有很多,筆者選取了自由裁量和行政裁量?jī)蓚�(gè)概念,并且介紹了當(dāng)前學(xué)界更加傾向于使用行政裁量這一概念。盡管國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者對(duì)概念的理解存在分歧,但筆者認(rèn)為這并非是問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵。其次,是對(duì)我國(guó)當(dāng)前濫用職權(quán)的審判案例進(jìn)行實(shí)證研究。通過(guò)對(duì)檢索到的案例樣本進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì),并對(duì)統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果加以研究,從數(shù)據(jù)中發(fā)現(xiàn)司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)行政濫用職權(quán)的司法審查依然存在問(wèn)題。在上述案例總體數(shù)據(jù)的研究基礎(chǔ)上篩選出有代表性的案例進(jìn)行深入分析,從實(shí)證角度觀察法官對(duì)濫用職權(quán)是以何種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。由于對(duì)濫用職權(quán)進(jìn)行司法審查,不可避免的會(huì)涉及到司法裁量與行政裁量二者之間如何平衡的問(wèn)題,這也是我國(guó)對(duì)濫用職權(quán)的司法審查不盡如人意的癥結(jié)所在。筆者在介紹行政裁量發(fā)展脈絡(luò)的基礎(chǔ)上,說(shuō)明了對(duì)行政裁量行為的審查已成必然,但同時(shí)又必須給及行政裁量行為足夠的尊重。裁量的價(jià)值和危險(xiǎn)是并存的,因此必須恰當(dāng)掌握好司法裁量權(quán)與行政裁量之間的邊界。最后一部分是筆者針對(duì)當(dāng)前學(xué)術(shù)理論和司法實(shí)踐中問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析后,嘗試為我國(guó)濫用職權(quán)的司法審查提出幾點(diǎn)自己的想法,以期促進(jìn)問(wèn)題的解決。
[Abstract]:The construction of service-oriented government has put forward higher requirements for various administrative actions of the government. The power has the nature of corruption, and the abuse of the administrative authority will inevitably occur. How to stop the abuse of power by the government? To provide relief for the infringed administrative counterpart is the problem that we have to face and solve. This paper intends to discuss from the following parts. Any study must have a clear understanding of the object of study, otherwise it will lead to a deviation from the whole research direction. There are many concepts related to abuse of power. The author chooses two concepts of discretion and administrative discretion. And introduced the current academic circles more inclined to use the concept of administrative discretion. Although scholars at home and abroad have different understanding of the concept, the author thinks this is not the key to the problem. Secondly, It is an empirical study on the current judicial cases of abuse of power in China. Through the statistical analysis of the data of the retrieved case samples, and the study of the statistical results, It is found from the data that there are still problems in judicial review of administrative abuse of power in judicial practice. On the basis of the study of the overall data of the above cases, the representative cases are selected for in-depth analysis. From the empirical point of view, it is necessary to observe the criterion by which the judge determines the abuse of power. Due to the judicial review of abuse of power, the problem of how to balance the judicial discretion and the administrative discretion is inevitably involved. This is also the crux of judicial review of abuse of power in our country. On the basis of introducing the development of administrative discretion, the author explains that the review of administrative discretion has become inevitable. But at the same time, there must be sufficient respect for administrative discretion. The value and danger of discretion coexist, Therefore, the boundary between judicial discretion and administrative discretion must be properly grasped. This paper tries to put forward some ideas for the judicial review of abuse of power in our country in order to promote the solution of the problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北方工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周隆基;彭貴才;;行政裁量行為的司法審查——以《行政訴訟法》修改為視角的分析[J];電子科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社科版);2015年06期

2 施立棟;;被濫用的“濫用職權(quán)”——行政判決中濫用職權(quán)審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的語(yǔ)義擴(kuò)張及其成因[J];政治與法律;2015年01期

3 劉藝;;論我國(guó)行政裁量司法控制模式的建構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)家;2013年04期

4 江必新;;行政強(qiáng)制司法審查若干問(wèn)題研究[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2012年05期

5 孫啟福;張建平;;行政濫用職權(quán)司法審查的檢討與重構(gòu) 以法官的規(guī)避傾向?yàn)橐暯荹J];法律適用;2011年03期

6 姜明安;;行政監(jiān)管裁量權(quán)的法律規(guī)制[J];湖南省社會(huì)主義學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

7 何海波;;行政行為的合法要件——兼議行政行為司法審查根據(jù)的重構(gòu)[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2009年04期

8 余凌云;;對(duì)行政機(jī)關(guān)濫用職權(quán)的司法審查——從若干判案看法院審理的偏好與問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2008年01期

9 鄭春燕;;論“行政裁量理由明顯不當(dāng)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——走出行政裁量主觀性審查的困境[J];國(guó)家行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

10 張千帆;;行政自由裁量權(quán)的法律控制——以美國(guó)行政法為視角[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1539973