English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89671/119468 (75%)
Visitors : 23934684      Online Users : 168
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96799


    Title: 和為貴 ——由「合作行政」的概念論行政調解 的法制改革
    Other Titles: The Legal Reform of Administrative Mediation: A Study on the Concept of Cooperative Administration
    Authors: 陳新民
    Chen, Shin-Min
    Keywords: 合作行政;行政協調;行政程序法;認罪協商;行政契約;替代性爭議解決辦法;行政罰;行政約定
    Cooperative Administration;Administrative Coordination;Administrative Procedure Act;Guilty Pleas;Administrative Contracts;Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR;Administrative Penalty;Administrative Agreement
    Date: 2011-06
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 16:32:24 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文是由行政合作的概念談起,以NCC最近產生的兩個案例作為討論的楔子,來討論這一個較新的行政法學概念,也是檢討行政協調制度的法制改革問題。\r行政調解是解決行政爭議的一種機制,它可以產生在行政程序之中,也可以產生在行政訴訟的過程。在行政法學上,是將重點擺在後者——也就是「行政訴訟的和解」。但是受到了「公權不可處分」的理論影響,傳統行政法學也對於「行政訴訟和解」頗為排斥,我國直到二○○○年七月實施新的行政訴訟制度,才引進了行政訴訟和解的制度。中國大陸行政訴訟法第五十條仍維持禁止行政訴訟和解的態度。\r在行政程序中忽視調解的現象,可由目前行政法上四個可能解決爭議的制度,即:一、行政約定;二、行政承諾;三、行政契約;四、行政指導,來檢驗其功能。結果顯示,這四個制度,不論是在法律的承認,或是制度的設計上,都顯然不能充分解決行政的爭議。我國雖然在刑法上引進認罪協商制度,但是在行政罰法上卻未引進此類似的制度,惟有在稅務違章案件有引進此制但卻還是以行政命令作為其基礎,因此,我國應該考慮在行政罰的領域實施此制。我國近年來也開始研究美國的替代性爭議解決辦法(ADR),但學說上對於此制度的了解僅限於具有行政指導色彩的解決民事爭議,對此制度來說,不無誤解之處,然而這些制度並未有太大的可行性。同樣的,我國政府採購法也引進了履約爭議的調解制度,也仍是以處理民事爭議為對象,仍非行政調解。\r故行政調解制度在我國現今立法例上,似仍未獲得應有的重視,因此,我國行政程序法應當儘量的鬆開束縛,讓當事人與行政機關能夠彈性的解決彼此的爭議。
    Administrative Mediation (A.M) is a mechanism for solving conflicts which might occur during an administrative procedure or in the process of administrative litigation. Under the influence of the traditional principle: “No abandonment of public authority,” A.M was not widely grasped by scholars, including those in Taiwan. The Administrative Litigation Act did not provide for A.M until July 2000. The China Act for Administrative Litigation still maintains a negative attitude toward A.M to the present. The general ignorance of the importance of A.M in Taiwan can be demonstrated by considering four possible institutions of the Administrative Procedure Act which might be effective for solving administrative conflicts, namely, the systems of 1) Administrative Agreement, 2) Authority’s Promise, 3) Administrative Contract, and 4) Administrative Direction. In themselves, these four institutions are not sufficiently capable of solving administrative conflicts both in terms of the recognition of law and the design of systematic administrative conflicts. The plea-guilty system was adopted into Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law in 2004, and a similar system also was adopted for the field of tax-violations in 1992. However, the new Administrative Penalty Law still does not provide for such an institution. The tax practice’s adoption of such a plea-guilty system was not authorized by law but merely by ad hoc regulation of the Tax Authority. The ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), which was enacted in the USA, has been discussed recently in Taiwan. A leading scholar contends that this system—carrying the feature of the Administrative Direction—aims to solve conflicts pertaining to private rights. This is a misunderstanding of the ADR, but it has been transferred into the Governmental Purchase Act. This act allows the parties of a purchasing contract to apply for mediation when a conflict has occurred over contract duties. Therefore, the mediation system of this act should not be considered a system of A.M. In conclusion, the importance of A.M has not been recognized in the legislation enacted in Taiwan. It is here argued that the Administrative Procedure Act should deregulate and lift unnecessary restraints in order to give the people and the Administration more flexible ways to solve their problems.
    Relation: 法學評論, 121, 107-160
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    121(107-160).pdf976KbAdobe PDF387View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback