重大行政决策概念证伪及其补正

On the Conception of Important Administrative Decision-Making and Its Additions and Corrections

行政法学现有的概念群无法给重大行政决策提供容身之所,它要么只能被作为程序性行为加以解释,要么便只能被作为行政立法或具体行政行为的替代品加以解释。无论是在概念内涵上,还是在外延上,重大行政决策都没有独立意义可言。为此,我国行政法学界曾试图通过"实用主义"和"行政过程论"的方法加以补正,但效果并不理想。现阶段,较为可行的替代方案拟有两种:其一,是将重大行政决策的法治化问题,置于每一类行政行为的法治化进程中一并完成,彻底改变试图对它做整齐划一的程序规范之类的做法,只将其作为一种政策性宣传或程序性理念,贯彻到各部门行政法之中,逐一规范,而不再在地方性行政程序规定中为其单设篇章;其二,是类似于我国某些地方一样,采用诸如目录制度之类的权宜之计,强制性地将其概念缺陷予以固化,从而解决其变动不居的天然缺陷。

Important administrative decision-making cannot be classified to the administrative law＇s concept group, and it just can be explained as a procedure behavior or administrative legislation and specific administrative act. In China, some researchers tried to adopt pragmatic theory and administrative process theory to solve this problem, but failed. In the author＇ s opinion, there are two feasible solutions. First of all, we should take the important administrative decision-making as a publicity or procedure idea only, which cannot be arranged in a system directly and should be distributed to the departmental administrative law individually; secondly, we can also follow the example of some cities to take the program which called Catalog System to fix the concept of important administrative decision-making, but it is just a stopgap measure.