期刊文献+

行政救助决策权法治化研究 被引量:3

Research on Legalization of Administrative Assistance Decision-making Power
原文传递
导出
摘要 行政救助是政府对依靠自己的努力不能满足基本生活需求或遭受急难灾害的公民进行的救援和帮助。行政决策是政府履行救助职责的主要手段和方式。行政救助决策权的法治化主要包括行政救助创设决策权的法治化、行政救助预算编制决策权的法治化和启动实施急难救助决策权的法治化。中央和地方行政救助决策权限划分要实现法治化并优化中央和地方在行政救助上的财政分担机制。 Administrative assistance refers to the relief and help offered by the government to the citizen who cannot meet basic life demand by themselves and who suffer emergency,contingency or natural disaster. Administrative decision-making power is the main way of the government to fulfill the responsibility of assistance. The legalization of administrative assistance decision-making power includes the legalization of decision-making power to create administrative assistance, the legalization of decision-making power to prepare administrative assistance budget and the legalization of decision-making power to start and implement the emergent assistance. Administrative assistance decision-making authority partition between central and local government should be ruled by law and financial sharing mechanism should be optimized.
作者 席能
出处 《河北法学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2011年第3期49-54,共6页 Hebei Law Science
基金 河南省教育厅人文社会科学规划项目<行政救助决策法治化问题研究>(2010-GH-093)阶段性成果
关键词 行政救助决策 行政救助创设决策 行政救助预算编制决策 急难救助实施决策 administrative assistance decision-making power decision-making power to create administrative assistance decision-making power to prepare administrative assistance budget decision-making power to start and implement the emergent assistance
  • 相关文献

参考文献16

二级参考文献121

共引文献186

同被引文献63

  • 1张书克.“服务行政”理论批判[J].行政法学研究,2002(2):64-69. 被引量:24
  • 2谈志林.欧盟立宪进程中的地方自治与中国地方制度的演进[J].浙江社会科学,2004(4):43-48. 被引量:6
  • 3李景春.论调解在国家赔偿审判中的适用[J].山东法官培训学院学报,2008,24(1):67-70. 被引量:1
  • 4周佑勇.裁量基准的正当性问题研究[J].中国法学,2007(6):22-32. 被引量:163
  • 5Irving R.Kaufman,“Masters in the Federal Courts:Rule 53”,58 Columbia Law Review 452(1958);David Levine,“The Authority for the Appointment of Remedial Special Masters in Federal Institutional Reform Litigation:The History Reconsidered”,17 University of California Davis Law Review 753(1984).
  • 6Margaret G.Farrell,“The Function and Legitimacy of Special Masters”,2 Widener Law Symposium Journal 235,246(1997).
  • 7Margaret G.Farrell,“The Function and Legitimacy of Special Masters”,2 Widener Law Symposium Journal 235,245(1997).
  • 8Thelton E.Henderson,“Settlement Masters”,in ADR and the Courts:A Manual for Judges and Lawyers,edited by Erika S.Fine,Butterworth Legal Publishers,1987,p.233;John W.Cooley,“Query:Could Settlement Masters Help Reduce the Cost of Litigation and the Workload of Federal Courts?”,68 Judicature 59,60 (1984);Kenneth Feinberg,“The Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust”,53 Law&Contemporary Problems 79,106—107 (1990);Vincent M.Nathan,“The Use of Masters in Institutional Reform Litigation”,10 Toledo Law Review418 ,429—430(1979).
  • 9《联邦民事诉讼规则》第53(a)条.
  • 10Margaret G.Farrell,“The Function and Legitimacy of Special Masters”,2 Widener Law Symposium Journal 235,252—253(1997).

引证文献3

二级引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部