党内法规若干基本范畴思辨

Discrimination of Several Basic Category of Intra-Party Regulations

党内法规"软法论"可能导致规范坐标游移的"泛法律主义",党内法规"高级法论"不符合以"高级法"规范现实权力的立宪主义精神,两者都是试图摆脱却更深陷入"法律中心主义"的表现。党内法规既非权利本位,也非义务本位,党员权利和党员义务的关系实际呈现为"双重义务结构"。党内法规"溢出效力"是一个自相矛盾的"范畴误置",混淆了党内法规的规范效力和实际效应。认为党内法规的调整对象包括党外主体,既不符合规范调整的一般原理,也不符合党内法规的实践事实。党规与法律两套规范体系的合治结构,维系了党和国家两套组织体系的交叉融合。党的领导不是通过直接与党外主体建立支配服从关系实现的,而是在合治结构当中通过灵活运用"示范性引领"策略和"组织化嵌入"策略而实现。党规的特别作用机制兼顾了党的领导的实质有效性和程序合法性。

Viewing intra-Party regulations as “soft law” may lead to “pan-legalism”,treating intraParty regulations as “higher law” is inconsistent with the spirit of constitutionalism,stating that the power of the State shall be bound by “higher law”. Both are the manifestations of “law centralism”,which should be got rid of but keeps being fallen into. The intra-Party regulations are neither rights-based nor obligation-based. Neither the party members’ rights nor the party members’ obligations have an ontological value. The relationship between the two actually appears as a “dual obligation structure”. The recognition that intra-Party regulations have transcendent validity does not conform to the principles of legal norms,nor does it conform to the practical facts of the intra-Party regulations. Party leadership is not achieved by establishing dominant and obedient relationships directly with non-party organizations and non-party subjects. Instead,it takes advantage of the norms platform of governance and achieves it through “exemplary guidance” and “organizational embedding” mechanisms.