摘要
我国公法学界的部分学者认为宪法与行政法意义上的法律保留区别明显,也有一些学者则认为两者区别不大。这一学理争议反映了法律保留理论与实际的立法体制之间的"脱节"。究其原因,与目前"依法行政"难以真正落到实处、建构类似法国的一般性"行政保留"的概念还比较困难有关。但是,我国现行宪法架构下的立法体制与法国宪法架构下的立法体制具有某种程度上的相似性,并未在规范制定权层面采纳全面法律保留,而是赋予国务院以自主行政法规范制定权和独立的宪法地位。为此,有必要借鉴和引入法国的行政保留理论以弥补传统理论在解释现有立法体制上的缺陷,解决相关学术争议。
The attitudes of Chinese public law scholars to legal reservation are different. Some scholars believe that the the distinction of legal reservation in the sense of Constitution and Administrative law is obvious, while other scholars believe that there is not much difference, and they are the ＂two sides of a coin＂ . This theoretical controversy reflects the separation between the theory of legal reservation and the legislative system in practice. The reason may be that it is difficult for administration according to law to truly implement, and it is relatively difficult to build the general concept of administration reservation which is similar to France. However, the legislative system of China under the current constitutional framework and the legislative system of France under the current constitutional framework are similar in some degrees, that is, it has not adopted a comprehensive legal reservation in the level of law - making power, but gives the State Council the law - making power on its own. Therefore, it is necessary to learn and introduce the theory of administration reservation of France to make up for the deficiencies of traditional theory in explaining the existing legislative system and resolve the related academic controversy.
出处
《法学杂志》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第12期24-33,共10页
Law Science Magazine
基金
国家哲学社会科学基金一般项目"行政保留比较研究"(14BFX031)和国家哲学社会科学基金重点项目"依宪治国的中国道路"(14AZD132)的阶段性研究成果
关键词
立法体制
法律保留
立法保留
行政保留
legislative institutional
legal reservation
legislative reservation
administrative reservation
