论行政诉讼履行判决的重构

On the Reconstruction of Enforcement Judgment in Administrative Litigation

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

温泽彬

归属院系：

行政法学院

作者：

温泽彬 ;曹高鹏

摘要：

履行判决作为行政诉讼法法定判决方式的一种,是基于判决类型化制度而言的。在给付行政和服务行政的观念逐步拓展、行政公益诉讼制度得到确立的情况下,履行判决本身在司法审判活动中却备受冷落,其适用比例占判决总数量始终偏低,行政诉讼已经不能满足于单纯对于外化为作为形式的行政行为本身合法性的审查,行政不作为的违法逐渐成为一种"常态",行政不履行法定职责的"多"与履行判决的"少"之间的张力愈发明显。履行判决之所以备受"冷落"的主要原因在于学界对于其适用范围、判决内容明晰程度、期限的确定等适用规则等问题未加以重视,亦未达成共识,从而导致司法实践中履行判决被审慎适用。行政诉讼履行判决的重构,并非对履行判决制度进行推倒重建,而是在深刻研究我国行政诉讼法立法宗旨的基础之上,提出行政诉讼类型化制度和在行政诉讼法现有条文框架内完成对于履行判决制度存在问题的完善,从宏观和微观两个层面并行不悖地重新架构履行判决制度,其根本导向是保障公民欲通过行政诉讼获得权利救济的深度和力度。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2018-09-05

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2018-10-09

引用参考：

温泽彬;曹高鹏. 论行政诉讼履行判决的重构[J]. 政治与法律,2018(09):24-38.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论行政诉讼履行判决的重构
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 温泽彬;曹高鹏
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Wen Zebin;Cao Gaopeng
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学行政法学院;
  • dc.publisher
  • 政治与法律
  • dc.publisher
  • Political Science and Law
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2018
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 09
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • No.280
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 24-38
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2018-09-05
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 行政诉讼履行判决;;行政不作为;;不履行法定职责;;判决类型化;;诉讼类型化
  • dc.subject
  • Enforcement Judgment in Administrative Litigation;;Administrative Nonfeasance;;Nonfeasance of Legal Duties;;judgment Typification;;Litigation Ttypification
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 履行判决作为行政诉讼法法定判决方式的一种,是基于判决类型化制度而言的。在给付行政和服务行政的观念逐步拓展、行政公益诉讼制度得到确立的情况下,履行判决本身在司法审判活动中却备受冷落,其适用比例占判决总数量始终偏低,行政诉讼已经不能满足于单纯对于外化为作为形式的行政行为本身合法性的审查,行政不作为的违法逐渐成为一种"常态",行政不履行法定职责的"多"与履行判决的"少"之间的张力愈发明显。履行判决之所以备受"冷落"的主要原因在于学界对于其适用范围、判决内容明晰程度、期限的确定等适用规则等问题未加以重视,亦未达成共识,从而导致司法实践中履行判决被审慎适用。行政诉讼履行判决的重构,并非对履行判决制度进行推倒重建,而是在深刻研究我国行政诉讼法立法宗旨的基础之上,提出行政诉讼类型化制度和在行政诉讼法现有条文框架内完成对于履行判决制度存在问题的完善,从宏观和微观两个层面并行不悖地重新架构履行判决制度,其根本导向是保障公民欲通过行政诉讼获得权利救济的深度和力度。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As a legal pattern of judgment in administrative litigation law, the enforcement judgment is based on the system of judgment typification. Under the circumstances of the gradually-expended concepts of supply administration and service administration, and the establishment of the administrative public interest litigation system, the enforcement judgment itself is however always overlooked in judicial trial activities.Its application ratio remains low. The administrative litigation cannot be limited to the only examination of the legality of the administrative action which is showed in the form of an active action and the administrative wrongdoing in the form of nonfeasance has gradually become a common phenomenon, thus the tension between the two facts that there are many cases involving administrative nonfeasance and there are few enforcement judgments is more obvious. The main reason for overlooking the enforcement judgment is that the academia doesn't attach importance to or reach a consensus on the scope of applying the enforcement judgment, the degree of the clarity of the judgment content, the determination of the term and other application rules, so the enforcement judgment is cautiously applied in judicial practice. The reconstruction of enforcement judgment of the administrative litigation does not mean the overturn and rebuilding of the old, but the improvement of existing issues in the system of enforcement judgment within the framework of the system of administrative litigation typification and the current administrative procedure law and on basis of legislative aims of administrative procedure law of China, thus parallelly reconstructing the enforcement judgment system from the macro and micro perspectives, with the basic intention to ensure citizens' more and easier access to right remedy through administrative litigation.
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 31-1106/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1005-9512
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 1.286
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.3
回到顶部