行政裁决救济的理论逻辑与制度安排

Theoretical Logic and Institutional Arrangement of Administrative Adjudication Relief

中国有关行政裁决救济的规定散见于各类法律、法规、规章以及行政规范性文件之中,呈现出一般规定与特别规定俱有、民事诉讼与行政诉讼等多种模式并存的立法现状。在理论上,学界亦相继提出“两者择一说”“两者合一说”“新型诉讼说”等多种方案。行政裁决救济有其特殊的内在机理,需回归行政裁决之本质,恪守基本的司法原理,并遵循司法最终解决、纠纷实质化解和便宜当事人三项原则。为此,较为科学和周全的制度安排应是,将“裁决结果”与“裁决行为”区分开来,采取严格的双轨制。当事人若对行政机关化解民事纠纷的“裁决结果”不服,应以民事纠纷的另一方当事人为被告提起民事诉讼;当事人若对行政机关化解民事纠纷的“裁决行为”不服,如裁决人员出现违法渎职行为,应通过行政内部监督机制或纪检监察机制解决。

The provisions on administrative adjudication relief in China are seen in all kinds of laws,regulations,rules and administrative normative documents,showing the legislative status quo of the coexistence of general provisions and special provisions,of civil litigation and administrative litigation.In theory,scholars have put forward various possible schemes,such as “alternative theory”,“combination theory” and “new litigation theory”.Administrative adjudication relief has its special internal mechanism.It needs to return to the essence of administrative adjudication,abides by the basic judicial principles,and follows the three principles of judicial final settlement,substantive dispute resolution and benefits of the parties concerned.Therefore,a more scientific and comprehensive institutional arrangement should distinguish between “adjudication result” and “adjudication action” and adopt a strict two-track system.If a party concerned is not satisfied with the “adjudication result” of the administrative organ in resolving the civil dispute,the other party of the dispute should file a civil lawsuit as the defendant.If the party concerned is not satisfied with the “adjudication action” of the administrative organ,such as breach of duty of adjudicators,the dispute should be resolved through internal administrative supervision mechanism and discipline inspection and supervision mechanism.