清末民初行政诉讼机关设置论争及其当代启示
|
摘要
清末行政法思想逐渐传入,并提出了设立行政裁判院的构想,但由于清朝的灭亡而未能实现。关于平政院的设立曾引发了民国前期关于行政诉讼机关设置的激烈论争,观点大致分为"一元制"、"二元制"、"折衷制"三类。北洋政府初期选择了普通法院与行政法院分开的二元制模式,设立了平政院并取得了较好成绩,但此类论争与法律变更一直延续至平政院设立之后仍未停止。这场学术争鸣推动了行政诉讼机关的确立与发展,对百年之后的中国同样具有现实的借鉴意义。
At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the idea of administrative law was gradually introduced, and the idea of setting up an administrative tribunal was put forward, but the goal failed to be achieved because of the destruction of the Qing Dynasty. The establishment of the administrative judgment institute had triggered a fierce debate on establishment of administrative litigation organs in the early period of the Republic of China. The views were roughly divided into three categories: "unitary system", "dual system" and "eclectic system". In the early days of the Beiyang government, the dual system, which was separated from the ordinary court and the administrative court, had been set up and good results achieved. However, this kind of debate and change of law continued until the establishment of the court of political affairs. This academic debate has promoted the development of the administrative litigation system, and has the realistic reference significance for China after a hundred years.
At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the idea of administrative law was gradually introduced, and the idea of setting up an administrative tribunal was put forward, but the goal failed to be achieved because of the destruction of the Qing Dynasty. The establishment of the administrative judgment institute had triggered a fierce debate on establishment of administrative litigation organs in the early period of the Republic of China. The views were roughly divided into three categories: "unitary system", "dual system" and "eclectic system". In the early days of the Beiyang government, the dual system, which was separated from the ordinary court and the administrative court, had been set up and good results achieved. However, this kind of debate and change of law continued until the establishment of the court of political affairs. This academic debate has promoted the development of the administrative litigation system, and has the realistic reference significance for China after a hundred years.
引文
[1]吴兴让.论急宜订行政诉讼法[N].北洋法政学报,1909,(95):2.
[2]邱之岫.民国初期行政法院发展史研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014:22.
[3]雪艇(王世杰).平政院制平议[J].太平洋,1917,(6):5.
[4]王宠惠.王宠惠法学文集[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:20-27.
[5]章士钊.章士钊全集(第4卷)[M].上海:文汇出版社,2000:61.
[6]石秋.平政院职权之争论[J].雅言,1914,(1-8):34.
[7]郭定保.平政院存废问题[J].北洋大学校季刊,1917,(3/4):4.
[8]天顽.评行政诉讼不设平政院之弊[N].宪法新闻,1913,(19):3.
[9]汪叔贤.论平政院[J].庸言,1914,(2-4):4.
[10]徐进.论民国初年行政诉讼体制的确立[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015,(3):184.
[11]袁世凯.为宪法草案事致各督[M].上海经世文社.民国经世文编.台北:文海出版社,1970:1719-1721.
[12]谢冬慧.民国时期行政审判机构之变迁[J].黑龙江社会科学,2017,(2):94.
[13]平政院.三年分行政诉讼之成绩[N].法律周报,1915,(64):1.
[14]黄源盛.民初平政院裁决书整编与初探[J].研究汇刊,2000(4):22.
[15]蔡志方.行政救济与行政法学[M]台北:三民书局,1993:161.
[16]胡译之.平政院评事、肃政史选任及履历考论[J].青海社会科学,2016,(2):192-196.
①伍朝枢是当时著名的外交家和法学学者,曾任宪法起草委员会委员。他认为中西方国情不同,不能照搬外国经验设立平政院。此观点参见1913年《宪法起草委员会会议记录》,原文为:“吾国民自有历史以来,苦于官吏之压制。今幸而有种种之自由权利,自应保障之,惟恐不密。使设平政院,则平政院之法官必采之原日之行政官,其感情偏向悉趋于行政一方面。行政法又最难编成法典,故司行政法者,极有操纵自由之余地。遇有国民与行政官吏涉讼之处,人民一方之保障殊嫌薄弱。吾民辛苦艰难所得之权利,无由享受。此弊非由意想上得来,法德等国已实有经验。彼先进之国尚且如此,何况受行政数千年压制之中国乎?”
②本处及以下相关《平政院编制令》的内容参见:邱之岫.民国初期行政法院发展史研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014版,附录部分第232页-234页。
③参见“陈时力诉内务部违法免职案”,是1923年3月载于《政府公报》的一个典型案例。内务部土木司司长陈时力因不服内务部对其未请假而擅离职守给予的免职处分,提起了行政诉讼。最终,根据五张有长官批复的请假单及医生证言,平政院支持了陈时力的诉讼请求,判定内务部对其免职的行为违法,应予取消。此典型案例中行政相对人的权利得到了维护与保障。
[2]邱之岫.民国初期行政法院发展史研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014:22.
[3]雪艇(王世杰).平政院制平议[J].太平洋,1917,(6):5.
[4]王宠惠.王宠惠法学文集[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:20-27.
[5]章士钊.章士钊全集(第4卷)[M].上海:文汇出版社,2000:61.
[6]石秋.平政院职权之争论[J].雅言,1914,(1-8):34.
[7]郭定保.平政院存废问题[J].北洋大学校季刊,1917,(3/4):4.
[8]天顽.评行政诉讼不设平政院之弊[N].宪法新闻,1913,(19):3.
[9]汪叔贤.论平政院[J].庸言,1914,(2-4):4.
[10]徐进.论民国初年行政诉讼体制的确立[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015,(3):184.
[11]袁世凯.为宪法草案事致各督[M].上海经世文社.民国经世文编.台北:文海出版社,1970:1719-1721.
[12]谢冬慧.民国时期行政审判机构之变迁[J].黑龙江社会科学,2017,(2):94.
[13]平政院.三年分行政诉讼之成绩[N].法律周报,1915,(64):1.
[14]黄源盛.民初平政院裁决书整编与初探[J].研究汇刊,2000(4):22.
[15]蔡志方.行政救济与行政法学[M]台北:三民书局,1993:161.
[16]胡译之.平政院评事、肃政史选任及履历考论[J].青海社会科学,2016,(2):192-196.
①伍朝枢是当时著名的外交家和法学学者,曾任宪法起草委员会委员。他认为中西方国情不同,不能照搬外国经验设立平政院。此观点参见1913年《宪法起草委员会会议记录》,原文为:“吾国民自有历史以来,苦于官吏之压制。今幸而有种种之自由权利,自应保障之,惟恐不密。使设平政院,则平政院之法官必采之原日之行政官,其感情偏向悉趋于行政一方面。行政法又最难编成法典,故司行政法者,极有操纵自由之余地。遇有国民与行政官吏涉讼之处,人民一方之保障殊嫌薄弱。吾民辛苦艰难所得之权利,无由享受。此弊非由意想上得来,法德等国已实有经验。彼先进之国尚且如此,何况受行政数千年压制之中国乎?”
②本处及以下相关《平政院编制令》的内容参见:邱之岫.民国初期行政法院发展史研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014版,附录部分第232页-234页。
③参见“陈时力诉内务部违法免职案”,是1923年3月载于《政府公报》的一个典型案例。内务部土木司司长陈时力因不服内务部对其未请假而擅离职守给予的免职处分,提起了行政诉讼。最终,根据五张有长官批复的请假单及医生证言,平政院支持了陈时力的诉讼请求,判定内务部对其免职的行为违法,应予取消。此典型案例中行政相对人的权利得到了维护与保障。