替代的公共性规制:矿业权出让协议定性的逻辑本位

Alternative Public Regulation:Restatement of the Standard of Defining the Nature of Mining Rights Transfer Agreement

《最高人民法院关于审理行政协议案件若干问题的规定》(以下简称《行政协议解释》)基于"要素识别"标准将矿业权出让协议示例为行政协议后,该定性结论面临着"非市场行为性"标准的逻辑质疑,并主要针对作为前提标准的"要素识别"本身的科学性,及其在协议定性的归入适用中所显现的问题展开。然而,立足民法本位的两种定性逻辑,因未能把握"行政协议作为公共规制功能面向上产物"的认识核心而均存有疏漏。因此,对于矿业权出让协议的定性,应适当回归行政法本位对定性逻辑予以修正,在有无"替代公共性规制"的功能面向上考察协议性质。据此,矿业权出让协议因具有具象化规制矿产利用的公共性功能,而应定性为行政协议,而且基于该定性在规范适用、司法审查、制度逻辑中所呈现的价值,也将赋予该结论可采性。

After the judicial interpretation of the administrative agreement based on"factor recognition"defines the mining rights transfer agreement as the administrative agreement,the qualitative conclusion is faced with the logical question of the standard of"non-market behavior",it mainly focuses on the scientific nature of"factor recognition"as a prerequisite standard and its problems in the application of protocol characterization.However,based on the civil law standard of the two qualitative logics,there are omissions in the failure to grasp the core of the understanding of"administrative agreement as the product of public regulation function".Therefore,for the qualitativeization of mining rights transfer agreement,the qualitative logic should appropriately return to the standard of administrative law,and examine the nature of the agreement from the functional perspective of"alternative public regulation".Accordingly,because the mining rights transfer agreement has the public function of regulating the use of minerals,it should be characterized as an administrative agreement,and based on the value of this characterization in normative application,judicial review and institutional logic,this conclusion will also be given adicability.