摘要
从实务界发布的实质性解决行政争议典型案例出发,可以提炼出当前对这一审判理念两种不同的理解进路及其操作方式:结果主义和规范主义。两者在基本理念、制度操作方面都存在一定的紧张关系。相较而言,规范主义进路更符合建设法治国家要求和司法权运作规律,更契合既有审判经验和做法,且内涵于现有法律规定,结果主义进路则因存在诸多问题而应当审慎采用。在规范主义进路之下更好地展开实质性解决行政争议的司法活动,有必要进一步明确我国行政诉讼制度属性,重视行政诉讼类型理论应用,正确适用行政诉讼程序规则,注重发挥法官释明和依职权调查证据的能动作用。
Starting from the typical cases of substantive solution of administrative disputes issued by Judicial practice, we can extract two different understanding approaches and operation modes of this trial idea:consequentialism and normativism. There is a certain tension between the two ideas in the basic concept and system operation. In comparison, the normative approach is more in line with the requirements of building a country under the rule of law and the operation law of judicial power, more in line with the existing judicial experience and practices, and embodied in the existing legal provisions. The consequentialist approach should be adopted cautiously because of many problems. In order to better carry out the judicial activities of substantive solution of administrative disputes under the normative approach, it is necessary to further clarify the attribute of China’s administrative litigation system, pay attention to the application of the theory of administrative litigation types, correctly apply the rules of administrative litigation procedures, and give full play to the active role of judges in interpreting and investigating evidence according to their duties.
出处
《法治研究》
2023年第1期30-41,共12页
Research on Rule of Law
基金
2018年度国家社会科学基金项目“《行政诉讼法》实施背景下行政诉讼结构转型研究”(项目编号:18BFX047)阶段性成果。
关键词
实质性解决行政争议
规范主义
结果主义
依法审判
substantive solution of administrative disputes
normativism
consequentialism
trial in accordance with the law