行政协议识别标准的再探讨

Observation on Identification Standard of Administrative Contract

目前关于行政协议识别标准的学理争论在于职权性标准与公务性标准的选择,即是以执行具体行政职权亦或履行行政职责作为识别标准。目前的司法态度倾向于选择以职权性为主、公务性为辅的折中标准,但职权性与公务性实际上处于包含关系而非并列关系,故有必要在两者之间作出单一的选择,或者构建一种能够平衡、兼顾职权性和公务性特征的新标准。观察审判实践并结合学理分析可知,适用职权性标准将导致部分契约脱逸于公法的规范,而适用公务性标准确有不当扩大行政协议外延的情形。如若在公务性标准的基础上附加对缔约私法主体身份的限定,即将行政协议界定为行政机关在行政管理或公共服务活动中,与具有被管理者或被服务者身份的公民、法人或其他组织签订的协议,或许是一种更为合理且兼具可操作性的方式。

At present,the academic debate about the standard of administrative contract identification lies in the choice of the standard of authority and the standard of official duty,that is,to implement the specific administrative authority or to perform the administrative duty as the identification standard.Although the judicial attitude of the Supreme Court tends to choose the compromise standard which is mainly based on the authority and supplemented by the official nature,the authority standard and the official nature standard are in the relationship of inclusion rather than juxtaposition.It is necessary to make the only choice between them,or to build a standard which can balance the characteristics of the authority and the official nature.Through the observation of judicial practice and theoretical analysis,it can be seen that the application of the authority standard will lead to the escape of some contracts from the norms of public law,and the application of the official standard does not properly expand the extension of administrative contract.It may be a more reasonable and operable way to define an administrative contract as a contract signed between an administrative organ and a citizen,a legal person or other organizations with the identity of being managed or served in administrative management or public service activities.