风险规制视角下处罚法定原则在新兴科技领域执法中的困境——以人类遗传资源行政处罚为视角
|
摘要
处罚法定原则要求行政机关的行政处罚行为必须有明确的依据,而成文法的滞后性在飞速发展的科技领域又显得捉襟见肘。新兴技术的飞速发展使得行政机关在执法过程中面临无法可依的困境。处罚法定原则应当包含处罚种类和幅度的法定,而现实中规则又存在模糊不清的情况。造成这一困境的根本原因是在新兴科技领域中风险规制体系的不合时宜。构建超越行政执法领域的风险规制体系,引入风险预防原则并对裁量权进行分配,是解决现实问题的一个可供参考的思路。
The principle of punishment law requires that the administrative penalty of the administrative organ must have a clear basis, while the lag of written law appears to be limited in the rapidly developing science and technology field. The rapid development of emerging technologies makes the administrative organs face the dilemma that no law cannot be relied on in the process of law enforcement. The legal principle of punishment should include the type and range of punishment, while the rules in reality are ambiguous. The root cause of this dilemma is the inadequacy of the risk regulation system in the emerging science and technology field. The establishment of a risk regulation system beyond the administrative law enforcement domain, the introduction of risk prevention principles and the allocation of discretion is a reference to solving practical problems.
The principle of punishment law requires that the administrative penalty of the administrative organ must have a clear basis, while the lag of written law appears to be limited in the rapidly developing science and technology field. The rapid development of emerging technologies makes the administrative organs face the dilemma that no law cannot be relied on in the process of law enforcement. The legal principle of punishment should include the type and range of punishment, while the rules in reality are ambiguous. The root cause of this dilemma is the inadequacy of the risk regulation system in the emerging science and technology field. The establishment of a risk regulation system beyond the administrative law enforcement domain, the introduction of risk prevention principles and the allocation of discretion is a reference to solving practical problems.
引文
[1]尹培培.双重面向之处罚法定原则的困境及其出路--基于法的明确性原则[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2017,35(5):31-39.
[2]赫成刚.处罚法定原则及其他[J].中国质量技术监督,2017,(11):22-23.
[3]于金葵.行政处罚法定与自由裁量权浅议[J].政法论丛,1997(03):37-38.
[4]姜明安.行政法与行政诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2007,314.
[5]胡建淼.行政法学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2003,196.
[6]福建省福州市中级人民法院(2016)闽01行再19号.长乐市工商行政管理局、中国电信股份有限公司长乐分公司工商行政管理(工商)再审行政判决书[EB/OL].http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=019b3534-4480-4050-a23e-a7a20085deb3&KeyWord=%E5%A4%84%E7%BD%9A%E6%B3%95%E5%AE%9A.2018-8-23.
[7]辽宁省锦州市中级人民法院(2014)锦审二行终再字第00003号.锦州市国土资源局与刘军不服行政处罚案件再审判决书[EB/OL].http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=e97a9050-1bcf-4856-b758-1b8d82744f82&KeyWord=%E5%A4%84%E7%BD%9A%E6%B3%95%E5%AE%9A.2018-8-23.
[8]洪家殷.行政制裁[A],翁岳生:行政法(下册)[C],北京:中国法制出版社,2002,831.
[9]杨焕明.科学与科普--从人类基因组计划谈起[J].科普研究,2017,12(3):5-7;104.
[10]魏连媛.国际人权视角下生物遗传资源的法律保护[J].吉林工程技术师范学院学报,2014,30(7):11-14.
[11]袁端端.科技部官员深度解析人类遗传资源管理:正在进一步优化流程[EB/OL].http://www.infzm.com/content/129576.2018-8-23;叶送水.外国学者主导中国病人资源进行研究引发争议[EB/OL].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/QRPqMJNNUr3-6yBOqEUcww.2018-8-23.
[12]Selznick,P.Focusing Organizational Research on Regulation[A],Roger G.Noll.(Ed)Regulatory Science and the Social Sciences[C],University of California Press,1985,363.
[13]伊丽莎白·费雪.风险规制与行政宪政主义[M].沈岿译,北京:法律出版社,2012,88-91.
[14]OECD.'OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform.Risk and Regulatiory Policy:Improving the Governance of Risk'[EB/OL].www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.2018-8-23.
[15]李思敏、樊春良.政府使用科学应对风险的管理机制变迁--英国疯牛病事件与口蹄疫事件比较[J].科学学研究,2015,33(12):1761-1769.
[16]罗伯特·鲍德温、马丁·凯夫、马丁·洛奇.牛津规制手册[M],宋华琳、李鸻、安永康、卢超、宋华琳译,上海:上海三联书店,2017,169.
[17]Sinclair,D.'Self-regulation Versus Command and Control?Beyond False Dichotomies'[J],Law&Policy,1997,529-559.
[18]Freeman,J.'Private Parties,Public Functions and the New Administrative Law'[J],Administrative law Review,2000,813-858.
[19]高晓露、孙界丽.论风险预防原则的适用要件--以国际环境法为背景[J].当代法学,2007,(2):114-118.
[26]董妍.基本原则在行政裁判中的适用:以网约车行政诉讼为视角[J].人民司法(案例),2018,(2):19-23.
[2]赫成刚.处罚法定原则及其他[J].中国质量技术监督,2017,(11):22-23.
[3]于金葵.行政处罚法定与自由裁量权浅议[J].政法论丛,1997(03):37-38.
[4]姜明安.行政法与行政诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2007,314.
[5]胡建淼.行政法学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2003,196.
[6]福建省福州市中级人民法院(2016)闽01行再19号.长乐市工商行政管理局、中国电信股份有限公司长乐分公司工商行政管理(工商)再审行政判决书[EB/OL].http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=019b3534-4480-4050-a23e-a7a20085deb3&KeyWord=%E5%A4%84%E7%BD%9A%E6%B3%95%E5%AE%9A.2018-8-23.
[7]辽宁省锦州市中级人民法院(2014)锦审二行终再字第00003号.锦州市国土资源局与刘军不服行政处罚案件再审判决书[EB/OL].http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=e97a9050-1bcf-4856-b758-1b8d82744f82&KeyWord=%E5%A4%84%E7%BD%9A%E6%B3%95%E5%AE%9A.2018-8-23.
[8]洪家殷.行政制裁[A],翁岳生:行政法(下册)[C],北京:中国法制出版社,2002,831.
[9]杨焕明.科学与科普--从人类基因组计划谈起[J].科普研究,2017,12(3):5-7;104.
[10]魏连媛.国际人权视角下生物遗传资源的法律保护[J].吉林工程技术师范学院学报,2014,30(7):11-14.
[11]袁端端.科技部官员深度解析人类遗传资源管理:正在进一步优化流程[EB/OL].http://www.infzm.com/content/129576.2018-8-23;叶送水.外国学者主导中国病人资源进行研究引发争议[EB/OL].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/QRPqMJNNUr3-6yBOqEUcww.2018-8-23.
[12]Selznick,P.Focusing Organizational Research on Regulation[A],Roger G.Noll.(Ed)Regulatory Science and the Social Sciences[C],University of California Press,1985,363.
[13]伊丽莎白·费雪.风险规制与行政宪政主义[M].沈岿译,北京:法律出版社,2012,88-91.
[14]OECD.'OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform.Risk and Regulatiory Policy:Improving the Governance of Risk'[EB/OL].www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.2018-8-23.
[15]李思敏、樊春良.政府使用科学应对风险的管理机制变迁--英国疯牛病事件与口蹄疫事件比较[J].科学学研究,2015,33(12):1761-1769.
[16]罗伯特·鲍德温、马丁·凯夫、马丁·洛奇.牛津规制手册[M],宋华琳、李鸻、安永康、卢超、宋华琳译,上海:上海三联书店,2017,169.
[17]Sinclair,D.'Self-regulation Versus Command and Control?Beyond False Dichotomies'[J],Law&Policy,1997,529-559.
[18]Freeman,J.'Private Parties,Public Functions and the New Administrative Law'[J],Administrative law Review,2000,813-858.
[19]高晓露、孙界丽.论风险预防原则的适用要件--以国际环境法为背景[J].当代法学,2007,(2):114-118.
[26]董妍.基本原则在行政裁判中的适用:以网约车行政诉讼为视角[J].人民司法(案例),2018,(2):19-23.