行政裁量基准研究
|
摘要
行政裁量基准制度在我国是一个以规制行政裁量为目的的新兴制度,发展态势之猛烈已经得到学术界的高度重视。当然,新兴的制度的伊始,理论研究和实践操作中都会存在很多问题,这是无法规避的事实。然而,作为法律人,我们能做的,就只有让有生命力的制度,不要因为理论研究的滞后而导致实践中的困难重重。
行政裁量基准在我国还是一个备受质疑的制度,笔者首先对裁量基准的概念,功能及正当性进行了剖析,指出了质疑根源在于控制技术,从而肯定了该制度本身的价值。之后笔者又从该制度的根源上去找寻,引入了法理学中法的渊源理论作为分析工具,结合实证材料和各国相关制度的比较和学科交叉的相关知识,分析了行政裁量基准的形式渊源,即行政规则,是行政裁量基准的表现形式。笔者指出了我国行政规则中的研究误区,并提出了行政规则的研究应当从功能的视角类型化,然后根据此种功能性类型化的研究方法,进一步对行政裁量基准做了类型化的分析。行政裁量基准的实质渊源是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,笔者指出,公共政策和行政惯例是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,并分析了公共政策和行政惯例之所以成为行政裁量基准实质渊源的原因、对行政裁量基准制定的正负面影响以及如何对公共政策和行政惯例的影响予以规范。笔者以行政过程论为依托,力图建立一个理想的行政裁量基准的生成模式。
现有行政裁量基准生成模式可以分为两种,即自我生成模式和公众参与模式,两种模式的优点和弊端都很显著,故笔者主张建立一种结合两者优点的理想模式,从而拓宽了裁量基准的研究疆域。最后,笔者以行政裁量基准的后评估制度为例,对行政裁量基准的发展和完善提出了自己的构想。
The dissertation elaborated the concept, origin and generation model, and the development and perfection of Administrative Discretion Standard Institution. By reviewing the previous research of Administrative Discretion and Administrative Discretion Standard, the author found out the formal source and material source of the Administrative Discretion Standard, and clarified the research topic of Administrative Discretion Standard, and the relative issues need to be further studied.
The dissertation first analyzed the definition, nature of the Administrative Discretion and pointed out a new perspective for the study of Administrative Discretion, on the basis of the norms of previous research achievements. And then the author summarized the current research about this newly emerging institution, clarified the relationship among relative concept and centered on the dispute on the Administrative Discretion Standard institution. Furthermore, the author points out the research topic, methodology as well as some creative new ideas for the study of Administrative Discretion Standard.
Except for introduction and conclusion, this dissertation is divided into five parts.
Part One Introduction of Administrative Discretion Standard
First, the author distinguished the definitions, rules and standards of Administrative Discretion Standard, and found that the Administrative Discretion Standard is the basic standard. Besides, the author analyzed the function of Administrative Discretion Standard, and demonstrated that its function is not to eliminate ossification, but to avoid ossification. Administrative Discretion Standard provides the grounds for the application of Administrative Discretion. To effectively avoid the“Different law enforcement”is the common goal for administrative institutions and private party. Meanwhile, Administrative Discretion Standard established the communicative platform for private party, judge and administrative agency, and provides the grounds for the surveillance and supervision of administrative discretion. Second, the dissertation analyzed the nature of Administrative Discretion Standard,
that is, flexibility, and accountability、acceptability and procedure. The author believes that the significance of Administrative Discretion Standard is not to kill discretion, or to compress the discretion space by force, but to fill the blank of discretion, and guide the correct use of discretion. Discretion is a variable, thus Administrative Discretion Standard is a variable as well. Therefore it is inappropriate to expect a perfect Administrative Discretion Standard to regulate discretion. Administrative Discretion should be flexible and accessible to changes according to different situations, and that is the essence of Administrative Discretion Standard. The generating organs should have a obligation to the accountability to the Administrative Discretion Standard, which could both be active and passive. That is to say, the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, could be accounted by the generation organs actively, or be accounted by the supervision party and interest group. The acceptability of Administrative Discretion Standard, also called the enforceability and effectiveness, means whether the public are able to accept the Administrative Discretion Standard, whether it is enforceable and restrainable in practice. Three requirements should be met for the acceptability, the information publication, interest balance and public participation. Procedure which is another nature and key for Administrative Discretion Standard is the basis for the rationality and legality of Administrative Discretion Standard.
Third, the author analyzed the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard based on the above argument, which is the result of self-control of agency's power. Although the legalization to control the Administrative Discretion Standard to is ideal, it does not get the consensus across the world, instead, arouses the suspicion from the scholars around the globe. The author discussed the feasibility of Administrative Discretion Standard institution from the perspective of comparative law. There are relative regulations about the Administrative Discretion Standard in the administrative law of Germany, Japan and Korea. Japan and Korea also write it into their Administrative Procedure Act. Although there is no Administrative Discretion Standard in the U.S., there are administrative rules, which is equivalent to the Administrative Discretion Standard. The author further pointed out, the effectiveness of Administrative Discretion Standard technology, is pivotal to support the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard. All the explanation, mathematical formula could cause the ossification of Administrative Discretion Standard, which requires the improvement through practice.
Part Two Formal Source of Administrative Discretion Standard
The author indicated that the administrative rules are the formal source of Administrative Discretion Standard, redefined the position of administrative rule in the administrative law system, and clarified the vague parlance in the regulation documents, in order to establish the necessary foundation for the dialogue with foreign administrative law.
First, the author pointed out that there are four long-standing misconceptions for the studies about administrative rules of Administrative Discretion Standard in China. They are the vague conception of administrative rules, restraints in the category research due to the classified methodology of internal administrative rules and external administrative rules, and the misconception about legal source position under the influence of its illegal source position in Administrative Procedure Law and Unconditionally Obedience. The author believed that the reason for these misconceptions is that there is no category research of the administrative rules from the aspect of function.
Second, the author made a category research on the Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of function. Based on the case studies, the author classified Administrative Discretion Standard, which is in the expression of administrative rules, into innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and instructive Administrative Discretion Standard. The conclusion is that Administrative Discretion Standard should uproot the innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, give priority to the explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and assisted with instructive Administrative Discretion Standard.
Part Three Material Source of Administrative Discretion Standard
This chapter focused on the Material sources of Administrative Discretion Standard. The author sought the source of Administrative Discretion Standard in real life, enhanced the extent of rationality in Administrative Discretion Standard. In addition, to evaluate the Administrative Discretion Standard in respect of the administrative rules, is able to strengthen our understanding of its position in China’s administrative law system, and clarify its legal effectiveness to the administrative enforcement and judicial supervision. However, further observation indicated that, in order to grasp the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, we need to explore the knowledge sources of these rules and the reality impact.
First, this chapter discussed public policy, a material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. The reason for public policy to develop into the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard is not only because of its content, body, but also due to its submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition. It is shown in the case study that, public policy has dual impact on the formation of Administrative Discretion Standard in both positive and negative sides. The exercise of public policy’s guidance to the Administrative Discretion Standard should be realized through the supervision of regulation document and setting up the legal observation system. By introducing the case of“detainment of smoker”, three reasons for public policy to be the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard are drawn: public policy propagandizes the administrative task in certain period, and pictures the social context made by Administrative Discretion Standard.Same agency and aim, which determines the basic principle that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard must follow the public policy; submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition determines that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard can not be separated from the consideration of public policy. Then the author analyzed the public policy’s dual impact to Administrative Discretion Standard. On the one hand, public policy could facilitate Administrative Discretion Standard meet the requirement of current society, fill the blank of legal Regulation of Administrative Discretion Standard, and put the self protection of Administrator. On the other hand, the public policy makes the legal regulations impractical, and impedes the formation of the legal consciousness of the whole society, cause the administrative autocracy. Therefore, we should adopt the pre-supervision to regulate the administrative rules, ensure the public policy meet the legitimate requirement at minimum level and promote the correct usage of explanation system in Administrative Discretion Standard.
Second, this chapter also discussed the administrative practice, the second material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. Administrative practice plays the guiding role in Administrative Discretion Standard, and is the important material source of it. Through the observation to the exercise of administrative practice, we found that it also boasts dual impact in both positive and negative. On one hand, the administrative practice fills the blank of written law and guarantees the interests of private party. On the other hand, it could lead to the slack of the Administrative Discretion Standard enforcement, and further leads to the administrative autocracy. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice’s guidance on Administrative Discretion Standard. Through the analysis of Entrapment Case in Shanghai, the author concluded that there are three reasons why administrative convention should become Administrative Discretion Standard: the administrative practice convention is the summary of practical exercise, which reflects the management from basic level; the administrative practice is the carrier of administrative self restraint principle, which reflects the principle of equality in enforcement; the administrative practice represents the professional technical judgment, which reflects the continuity of administrative activity. Then the author summarized the impact on both sides. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice on Administrative Discretion Standard, in order to guarantee the legitimacy of administrative practice and its correspondence to reality.
Part Four Generation Modes of Administrative Discretion Standard
This chapter established a generation mode depending on the administrative process for the Administrative Discretion Standard, based on the analysis of current generation mode of Administrative Discretion Standard. Firstly the author analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of two generation modes of Administrative Discretion Standard: Self-generation Mode and Public Participation Generation Mode. These two generation modes are not scientific generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard. The ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard should be a Self-Generation Mode built on the administrative process, taking the Public Participation as prerequisite. Then the author analyzed the ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process, such as, information, technology, expert and public participation, balance mechanism to avoid the ossification etc. Taking these factors into consideration, the author finally proposed an ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process.
Part Five Establishing Scientific Evaluation System to Improve Administrative Dicretion Standard
The autor pointed out that Administrative Discretion Standard, as a new system need to be further developed. Considering the low quality of Administrative Discretion Standard, the evaluation system, as a measure to improve the Administrative Discretion Standard, is particularly important. Motivation, method and result of evaluation of Administrative Discretion Standard are illustrated in this part. Although there are no empirical materials to serve for the evidence in this research, the conclusion of this thesis undoubtedly boasts forward-looking significance for the improvement of the quality of Administrative Discretion Standard.
In the conclusion part, the author concuded the entire general research of this thesis, and drawed a blue picture for future research of Administrative Discretion Standard.
行政裁量基准在我国还是一个备受质疑的制度,笔者首先对裁量基准的概念,功能及正当性进行了剖析,指出了质疑根源在于控制技术,从而肯定了该制度本身的价值。之后笔者又从该制度的根源上去找寻,引入了法理学中法的渊源理论作为分析工具,结合实证材料和各国相关制度的比较和学科交叉的相关知识,分析了行政裁量基准的形式渊源,即行政规则,是行政裁量基准的表现形式。笔者指出了我国行政规则中的研究误区,并提出了行政规则的研究应当从功能的视角类型化,然后根据此种功能性类型化的研究方法,进一步对行政裁量基准做了类型化的分析。行政裁量基准的实质渊源是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,笔者指出,公共政策和行政惯例是行政裁量基准的知识源头和材料来源,并分析了公共政策和行政惯例之所以成为行政裁量基准实质渊源的原因、对行政裁量基准制定的正负面影响以及如何对公共政策和行政惯例的影响予以规范。笔者以行政过程论为依托,力图建立一个理想的行政裁量基准的生成模式。
现有行政裁量基准生成模式可以分为两种,即自我生成模式和公众参与模式,两种模式的优点和弊端都很显著,故笔者主张建立一种结合两者优点的理想模式,从而拓宽了裁量基准的研究疆域。最后,笔者以行政裁量基准的后评估制度为例,对行政裁量基准的发展和完善提出了自己的构想。
The dissertation elaborated the concept, origin and generation model, and the development and perfection of Administrative Discretion Standard Institution. By reviewing the previous research of Administrative Discretion and Administrative Discretion Standard, the author found out the formal source and material source of the Administrative Discretion Standard, and clarified the research topic of Administrative Discretion Standard, and the relative issues need to be further studied.
The dissertation first analyzed the definition, nature of the Administrative Discretion and pointed out a new perspective for the study of Administrative Discretion, on the basis of the norms of previous research achievements. And then the author summarized the current research about this newly emerging institution, clarified the relationship among relative concept and centered on the dispute on the Administrative Discretion Standard institution. Furthermore, the author points out the research topic, methodology as well as some creative new ideas for the study of Administrative Discretion Standard.
Except for introduction and conclusion, this dissertation is divided into five parts.
Part One Introduction of Administrative Discretion Standard
First, the author distinguished the definitions, rules and standards of Administrative Discretion Standard, and found that the Administrative Discretion Standard is the basic standard. Besides, the author analyzed the function of Administrative Discretion Standard, and demonstrated that its function is not to eliminate ossification, but to avoid ossification. Administrative Discretion Standard provides the grounds for the application of Administrative Discretion. To effectively avoid the“Different law enforcement”is the common goal for administrative institutions and private party. Meanwhile, Administrative Discretion Standard established the communicative platform for private party, judge and administrative agency, and provides the grounds for the surveillance and supervision of administrative discretion. Second, the dissertation analyzed the nature of Administrative Discretion Standard,
that is, flexibility, and accountability、acceptability and procedure. The author believes that the significance of Administrative Discretion Standard is not to kill discretion, or to compress the discretion space by force, but to fill the blank of discretion, and guide the correct use of discretion. Discretion is a variable, thus Administrative Discretion Standard is a variable as well. Therefore it is inappropriate to expect a perfect Administrative Discretion Standard to regulate discretion. Administrative Discretion should be flexible and accessible to changes according to different situations, and that is the essence of Administrative Discretion Standard. The generating organs should have a obligation to the accountability to the Administrative Discretion Standard, which could both be active and passive. That is to say, the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, could be accounted by the generation organs actively, or be accounted by the supervision party and interest group. The acceptability of Administrative Discretion Standard, also called the enforceability and effectiveness, means whether the public are able to accept the Administrative Discretion Standard, whether it is enforceable and restrainable in practice. Three requirements should be met for the acceptability, the information publication, interest balance and public participation. Procedure which is another nature and key for Administrative Discretion Standard is the basis for the rationality and legality of Administrative Discretion Standard.
Third, the author analyzed the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard based on the above argument, which is the result of self-control of agency's power. Although the legalization to control the Administrative Discretion Standard to is ideal, it does not get the consensus across the world, instead, arouses the suspicion from the scholars around the globe. The author discussed the feasibility of Administrative Discretion Standard institution from the perspective of comparative law. There are relative regulations about the Administrative Discretion Standard in the administrative law of Germany, Japan and Korea. Japan and Korea also write it into their Administrative Procedure Act. Although there is no Administrative Discretion Standard in the U.S., there are administrative rules, which is equivalent to the Administrative Discretion Standard. The author further pointed out, the effectiveness of Administrative Discretion Standard technology, is pivotal to support the legitimacy of Administrative Discretion Standard. All the explanation, mathematical formula could cause the ossification of Administrative Discretion Standard, which requires the improvement through practice.
Part Two Formal Source of Administrative Discretion Standard
The author indicated that the administrative rules are the formal source of Administrative Discretion Standard, redefined the position of administrative rule in the administrative law system, and clarified the vague parlance in the regulation documents, in order to establish the necessary foundation for the dialogue with foreign administrative law.
First, the author pointed out that there are four long-standing misconceptions for the studies about administrative rules of Administrative Discretion Standard in China. They are the vague conception of administrative rules, restraints in the category research due to the classified methodology of internal administrative rules and external administrative rules, and the misconception about legal source position under the influence of its illegal source position in Administrative Procedure Law and Unconditionally Obedience. The author believed that the reason for these misconceptions is that there is no category research of the administrative rules from the aspect of function.
Second, the author made a category research on the Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of function. Based on the case studies, the author classified Administrative Discretion Standard, which is in the expression of administrative rules, into innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and instructive Administrative Discretion Standard. The conclusion is that Administrative Discretion Standard should uproot the innovative Administrative Discretion Standard, give priority to the explanative Administrative Discretion Standard and assisted with instructive Administrative Discretion Standard.
Part Three Material Source of Administrative Discretion Standard
This chapter focused on the Material sources of Administrative Discretion Standard. The author sought the source of Administrative Discretion Standard in real life, enhanced the extent of rationality in Administrative Discretion Standard. In addition, to evaluate the Administrative Discretion Standard in respect of the administrative rules, is able to strengthen our understanding of its position in China’s administrative law system, and clarify its legal effectiveness to the administrative enforcement and judicial supervision. However, further observation indicated that, in order to grasp the generation of Administrative Discretion Standard, we need to explore the knowledge sources of these rules and the reality impact.
First, this chapter discussed public policy, a material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. The reason for public policy to develop into the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard is not only because of its content, body, but also due to its submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition. It is shown in the case study that, public policy has dual impact on the formation of Administrative Discretion Standard in both positive and negative sides. The exercise of public policy’s guidance to the Administrative Discretion Standard should be realized through the supervision of regulation document and setting up the legal observation system. By introducing the case of“detainment of smoker”, three reasons for public policy to be the material source of Administrative Discretion Standard are drawn: public policy propagandizes the administrative task in certain period, and pictures the social context made by Administrative Discretion Standard.Same agency and aim, which determines the basic principle that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard must follow the public policy; submersion in the bureaucratic system and administrative tradition determines that the establishment of Administrative Discretion Standard can not be separated from the consideration of public policy. Then the author analyzed the public policy’s dual impact to Administrative Discretion Standard. On the one hand, public policy could facilitate Administrative Discretion Standard meet the requirement of current society, fill the blank of legal Regulation of Administrative Discretion Standard, and put the self protection of Administrator. On the other hand, the public policy makes the legal regulations impractical, and impedes the formation of the legal consciousness of the whole society, cause the administrative autocracy. Therefore, we should adopt the pre-supervision to regulate the administrative rules, ensure the public policy meet the legitimate requirement at minimum level and promote the correct usage of explanation system in Administrative Discretion Standard.
Second, this chapter also discussed the administrative practice, the second material source of Administrative Discretion Standard. Administrative practice plays the guiding role in Administrative Discretion Standard, and is the important material source of it. Through the observation to the exercise of administrative practice, we found that it also boasts dual impact in both positive and negative. On one hand, the administrative practice fills the blank of written law and guarantees the interests of private party. On the other hand, it could lead to the slack of the Administrative Discretion Standard enforcement, and further leads to the administrative autocracy. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice’s guidance on Administrative Discretion Standard. Through the analysis of Entrapment Case in Shanghai, the author concluded that there are three reasons why administrative convention should become Administrative Discretion Standard: the administrative practice convention is the summary of practical exercise, which reflects the management from basic level; the administrative practice is the carrier of administrative self restraint principle, which reflects the principle of equality in enforcement; the administrative practice represents the professional technical judgment, which reflects the continuity of administrative activity. Then the author summarized the impact on both sides. Thus an instructive system based on case studies and moderate legal supervision system should be built to regulate the administrative practice on Administrative Discretion Standard, in order to guarantee the legitimacy of administrative practice and its correspondence to reality.
Part Four Generation Modes of Administrative Discretion Standard
This chapter established a generation mode depending on the administrative process for the Administrative Discretion Standard, based on the analysis of current generation mode of Administrative Discretion Standard. Firstly the author analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of two generation modes of Administrative Discretion Standard: Self-generation Mode and Public Participation Generation Mode. These two generation modes are not scientific generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard. The ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard should be a Self-Generation Mode built on the administrative process, taking the Public Participation as prerequisite. Then the author analyzed the ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process, such as, information, technology, expert and public participation, balance mechanism to avoid the ossification etc. Taking these factors into consideration, the author finally proposed an ideal generation mode for Administrative Discretion Standard from the perspective of administrative process.
Part Five Establishing Scientific Evaluation System to Improve Administrative Dicretion Standard
The autor pointed out that Administrative Discretion Standard, as a new system need to be further developed. Considering the low quality of Administrative Discretion Standard, the evaluation system, as a measure to improve the Administrative Discretion Standard, is particularly important. Motivation, method and result of evaluation of Administrative Discretion Standard are illustrated in this part. Although there are no empirical materials to serve for the evidence in this research, the conclusion of this thesis undoubtedly boasts forward-looking significance for the improvement of the quality of Administrative Discretion Standard.
In the conclusion part, the author concuded the entire general research of this thesis, and drawed a blue picture for future research of Administrative Discretion Standard.
引文
[1]崔卓兰.行政程序法要论[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1996.
[2]余凌云.行政自由裁量论[M].北京:中国公安大学出版社,2005.
[3]朱新力.法治社会与行政裁量的基准研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[4]王名扬.法国行政法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1989.
[5]王名扬.美国行政法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995.
[6]叶必丰,周佑勇.行政规范研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[7]杨海坤,章志远.中国行政法基本理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[8]张国庆.现代公共政策[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[9]刘鑫帧.论裁量处分与不确定法律概念[M].台北:台湾五南出版公司,2005.
[10]龚祥瑞.比较宪法与行政法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[11]叶必丰.行政行为效力研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[12]杨建顺.日本行政法通论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1998.
[13]方世荣.论行政相对人[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[14]关保英.行政法的价值定位——效率、程序及其和谐[M].北京:中国政法大
学出版社,1999.
[15]陈新民.中国行政法学原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[16]彭文贤.行政生态学[M].台北:三民书局,1988.
[17]叶俊荣.面对行政程序法[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2002.
[18]翁岳生.行政法与现代法治国家[M].台北:祥新印刷有限公司,1989.
[19]吴庚.行政法之理论与实用[M].台北:三民书局,1998.
[20]张家洋.行政法[M].台北:三民书局股份有限公司,1991.
[21]林纪东.行政法[M].台北:三民书局,1980.
[22]城仲模.行政法之基础理论[M].台北:三民书局,1994.
[23][英]威廉·韦德.行政法[M].徐炳等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[24][英]马丁·洛林.公法与政治理论[M].郑戈译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[25][英]卡罗尔·哈洛,理查德·罗林斯.法律与行政(上卷)[M].杨伟东等译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[26][英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[27][英]哈耶克.自由秩序原理(上)[M].邓正来译,上海:三联书店,1997.
[28][法]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神(上册)[M].张雁深译.北京:商务印书馆,1987.
[29][美]理查德A.波斯纳.道德和法律理论的质疑[M].苏力译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[30][美]理查德B.斯图尔特.美国行政法的重构[M].沈岿译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[31][美]欧内斯特·盖尔霍恩,罗纳德·利文.行政法和行政程序法[M].黄列译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996.
[32][美]拉雷N.格斯顿.公共政策的制定——程序和原理[M].朱子译.重庆:重庆出版社,2001.
[33][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[34][美]布赖恩·莱特.法律与道德领域的客观性[M].高中等译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[35][美]霍贝尔.原始人的法(修订译本)[M].严存生等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[36][美]罗伯特·考特,托马斯·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军等译.上海:三联书店,1994.
[37][美]罗尓斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[38][德]哈特穆特·毛雷尔.行政法学总论[M].高家伟译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[39][德]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间:关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京:三联出版书店,2003.
[40][日]盐野宏.行政法[M].杨建顺译.北京:法律出版社,1999.
[41]崔卓兰,卢护锋.行政自制之生成与建构探讨[J].社会科学战线,2009(1).
[42]崔卓兰,刘福元.析行政自由裁量权的过度规则化[J].行政法学研究,2008(2).
[43]崔卓兰,刘福元.论行政自由裁量权的内部控制[J].中国法学,2009(4).
[44]崔卓兰,刘福元.行政自制——探索行政法理论视野之扩展[J].法制与社会发展,2008(3).
[45]崔卓兰,卢护锋.行政自制之途径探索[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2008(1).
[46]杨建顺.论行政裁量与司法审查——兼及行政自我拘束原则的理论依据[J].法商研究,2003(1).
[47]姜明安.行政裁量的软法规制[J].法学论坛,2009(4).
[48]周佑勇,邓小兵.行政裁量概念的比较观察[J].环球法律评论,2006(4).
[49]周佑勇.裁量基准的正当性问题研究[J].中国法学,2007(6).
[50]周佑勇,李俊.论行政裁量中的和解——以德国法和美国法为观察[J].行政法学研究,2007(1).
[51]周佑勇.行政裁量的治理[J].法学研究,2007(2).
[52]周佑勇.行政裁量的均衡原则[J].法学研究,2004(4).
[53]周佑勇,尹建国.论个人社会资本对行政裁量正义的影响[J].华东政法大学学报,2007(3).
[54]杨建顺.行政裁量的运作及其监督[J].法学研究,2004(1).
[55]余凌云.游走在规范与僵化之间——对金华行政裁量基准时间的思考[J].清华法学,2008(3).
[56]余凌云.对行政自由裁量概念的再思考[J].法制与社会发展,2002(5).
[57]余凌云.对行政机关滥用职权的司法审查——从若干判案看法院的偏好与问题[J].中国法学,2008(1).
[58]余凌云.论行政裁量目的不适当审查[J].法制与社会发展,2003(5).
[59]余凌云.行政诉讼法是行政法发展的一个分水岭吗?——透视行政法的支架性结构[J].清华法学,2009(1).
[60]王锡锌,章永乐.专家、公众与知识的运用——行政规则制定过程的一个分析框架[J].中国社会科学,2003(3).
[61]王锡锌.自由裁量权基准:技术的创新还是误用[J].法学研究,2008(5).
[62]王锡锌.裁量正义与行政正义[J].中外法学,2002(1).
[63]王锡锌.行政正当性需求的回归:中国新行政法概念的提出、逻辑与制度框架[J].清华法学,2009(2).
[64]张千帆.行政自由裁量权的法律控制——以美国行政法为视角[J].法律科学,2007(3).
[65]刘兆兴.行政裁量权的概念[J].中国法律年鉴,2002(1).
[66]王天华.裁量标准基本理论问题刍议[J].浙江学刊,2006(6).
[67]王天华.从裁量二元论到裁量一元论[J].行政法学研究,2006(1).
[68]皮协纯,凌云.亟待建立的专家论证制度——保证行政立法质量的重要措施[J].中国法学,1995(6).
[69]朱芒.论行政规定的性质——从行政规范体系角度的定位[J].中国法学,2003(1).
[70]朱芒.日本行政程序法中的裁量基准制度——作为程序正当性保障装置的内在构成[J].华东政法学院学报,2006(1).
[71]周旺生.重新研究法的渊源[J].比较法研究,2005(4).
[72]周旺生.法的渊源与法的形式界分[J].法制与社会发展,2005(4).
[73]周旺生.法的渊源意识的觉醒[J].现代法学,2005(4).
[74]叶必丰.行政规范法律地位的制度论证[J].中国法学,2003(5).
[75]朱应平.澳大利亚行政裁量的控制方法研究[J].比较法研究,2007(4).
[76]王海英,孙英.几个价值难题之我见[J].哲学研究,1992(19).
[77]季卫东.法律程序的意义[J].比较法学研究,1993(1).
[78]朱新力,骆梅英.论裁量基准的制约因素及建构路径[J].法学论坛,2009(4).
[79]沈岿.行政诉讼举证责任个性化研究之初步[J].中外法学,2000(1).
[80]沈岿.行政诉讼确立“行政裁量明显不当”标准之议[J].法商研究,2004(4).
[81]郑春燕.论“行政裁量理由明显不当”标准——走出行政裁量主观性审查的困境[J].国家行政学院学报,2007(4).
[82]郑春燕.论裁量视角下的行政契约[J].浙江学刊,2007(5).
[83]郑春燕.取决于行政任务的不确定法律概念定性——再问行政裁量概念的界定[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(5).
[84]郑春燕.论行政裁量中的政策考量——以“运动式”执法为例[J].法商研究,2008(2).
[85]小早川光郎著,王天华译.行政诉讼与裁量统制[J].行政法学研究,2006(3).
[86]陈景辉.原则、自由裁量与依法裁判[J].法学研究,2006(5).
[87]王明生、黎鹂.行政裁量权概念比较研究[J].中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版),2007(6).
[88]王贵松.行政裁量的内在构造[J].法学家,2009(2).
[89]宋功德.行政裁量控制的模式选择:硬法控制模式的失灵催生混合法控制模式[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[90]王天华.行政裁量与判断过程审查方式[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[91]宋华琳.基层行政执法裁量权研究[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[92]尹权.论行政惯例的司法审查[J].法律科学,2008(1).
[93]曾蔚.行政自由裁量权的概念及存在原因辨析[J].法学杂志,2005(5).
[94]周佑勇.作为过程的行政调查[J].法商研究,2006(1).
[95]于立深.论政府的信息形成权及当事人义务[J].法制与社会发展,2009(2).
[96]刘飞宇.从档案公开看政府信息公开制度的完善[A].公法研究:第四卷[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[97]于立深.成本效益分析方法在行政法上的运用——以“行政许可法”第20条、21条为例[A].公法研究:第四卷[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[98][美]洛伊.通向奴役的两条道路:自由主义,保守主义和行政权力[A].[美]埃尔金等.新宪政论——为美好的社会设计政治制度[C].周叶谦译.上海:三联书店,1997.
[99]柴会群.上海“倒钩”执法,立法司法难辞其咎[N].南方周末,2009-10-29.
[100]陈鹏庭.看着自己杀人,嫌犯两次痛哭[N].青年报,2008-7-25.
[1]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry [M].Urbana, Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press, 1971.
[2]RONALD DWORKIN.Taking Rights Seriously [M].Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.
[3]D.J.GALLIGAN.Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
[4]KEITH HAWKINS. The Use of Discretion [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
[5]FRANK JOHNSON GOODNOW.The Principles of the Administrative Law of the United States [M].New York: Putnam, 1905.
[6]STEPHEN G. BREYER, RICHARD B. STEWART, CASS R. SUNSTAIN, ADRIAN VERMEULE. Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy [M].6th ed. New York: Aspen Publisher, 2006.
[7]MARTIN LOUGHLIN. Public Law and Political Theory [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
[8]ROBERT BALDWIN. Rule and Government [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
[9]CORNELIUS M. KERWIN. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy [M].3rd ed. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2003.
[10]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Administrative Law Treatise [M].2nd ed.San Diego:K.C .Davis Pub. Co., 1978.
[11]STEPHEN G. BREYER, RICHARD B.STEWART, CASS R. SUNSTAIN , MATTHEW L. SPITZER. Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text and Cases [M].5th ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002.
[12]FRED RIGGS. The Ecology of Public Administration [M].New Delhi: Asia Publishing House, 1962.
[13]MICHAEL ASIMOW, ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD, RONALD M. LEVIN. State and Federal Administrative Law [M].2nd ed.Saint Paul: West Group, 1998.
[14]GRARY C. BRYNER. Bureaucratic Discretion [M].New York: Pergamon Press, 1987.
[15]MATTHEW D. ADLER, ERIC A. POSNER. Cost Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
[16]RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., SHAPIRO, PAUL R. VERKUIL. Administrative Law and Process [M].3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 1999.
[17]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Discretionary Justice in Europe and America [M].6th ed. Urbana, Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press, 1976.
[18]ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD. State Administrative Rule Making [M].Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company Press, 1986.
[19]KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, GERALD GUNTHER. Constitutional Law, 6th ed. [M].New York: Foundation Press, 2007.
[20]HARVARD LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION. Administrative Discretion in Zoning[J].Harvard Law Review, 1969, 82: 668.
[21]ALAN B. MORRISON.Administrative Agencies are Just Like Legislatures and Courts-Except When They’re Not[J].Administrative Law Review, 2007, 59: 79-118.
[22]ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD. Administrative Procedure Acts in an Age of Comparative Scarcity[J].Iowa Law Review, 1990, 75: 845.
[23]JOHN BELL. The Expansion of Judicial, Review over Discretionary Powers in France[J].Public Law, 1986, (Spring): 99-121.
[24]RICHARD ROSE. Inheritance in Public Policy: Change without Choice in Contemporary Britain[J].Public Law, 1995, (Summer): 340-342.
[25]ERNEST GIGLIO. Rights, Liberties and Public Policy[J].Public Law, 1995, (Winter): 671-673.
[26]ROSE CRANSTON. Law, Government and Public Policy[J].Public Law, 1988, (Winter): 647-648.
[27]DENNIS J GALLIGAN. Due Process And Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures[J].Public Law, 1997, (Autumn): 572-574.
[28]DOUGLAS WASS. Check and Balance in Public Policy Making [J].Public Law, 1987, (Summer): 181-201.
[29]A.P. LE SUEUR. Public Polices and the Adoption Act [J].Public Law, 1991, (Autumn): 326-331.
[30]D.J GALLIGAN. Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion[J].Public Law, 1988, (Summer): 289-292.
[31]DAVID CAMPBELL. Promoting Participation: Law or Politics1999 [J].Public Law, 2000, (Summer): 343-345.
[32]D.J. GALLIGAN. Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion [J].Public Law, 1988, (Summer): 289-292.
[33]KEITH HAWKINS. Making Regulatory Policy[J].Public Law, 1992, (Spring): 173-176.
[34]MICHAEL HARRIS. Administrative Justice in the 21st Century [J].Cambridge Law Journal, 2000, 59(2): 398-402.
[35]DANIEL A. FARBER. Rethinking the Role of Cost-Benefit Analysis [J].University of Chicago Law Review, 2009, 76: 1355.
[36]DAPHEN BARAK-EREZ. The Administrative Process As A Domain Of Conflicting Interests [J].Theoretical Inquiries In Law, 2005, 6: 193.
[37]MATTHEW D. ADLER. The Positive Political Theory of Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Comment on John-Ston[J].University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2002, 150: 1429.
[38] RUSSELL B. KOROBKIN.Behavioral Analysis and Legal Form: Rules VS. Standards Revisited[J].Oregon Law Review, 2000, 79: 23.
[39]ROBERT A. ANTHONY. David A. CODEVILLA.Pro-Ossification: A Harder Look At Agency Policy Statements[J].Wake Forest Law Review 1996, 31: 667.
[40]Charles H. Koch, Jr. Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion[J].Geoge Washington Law Review,1986, 54: 469.
[41] J.M.ROGERS. A Fresh Look at the Agency Discretion [J].Tulane Law Review, 1983, 57: 766-835.
[42] JODY FREEMAN, Private Parties, Public Functions, and the New Administrative Law[J].Administrative Law Review, 2000, 52: 813.
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 eeo.wash.L.Rev.469(1956).
①[美]霍贝尔:《原始人的法》(修订译本)，严存生等译，法律出版社2006年版，第18一19页。
②[德]哈特穆特·毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》，高家伟译，法律出版社2000年版，第124页。
⑧翁岳生:《行政法》(上)，翰芦图书出版公司2000年版，第205页。
①周佑勇、邓小兵:《行政裁量概念的比较观察》，《环球法律评论》2006年第4期。
②Kenneth eulp Davis，Discretiona叮Justice:A Prelimina叮Inqui叮，university oflllinoisPress，1971，p.15.
⑧J .M.Rogers，A Fresh Look attheAgencyDiscretion，57Tul.L.Rev.766一535(1953).
①翁岳生:《行政法与现代法治国家》，台湾大学法律从书编辑委员会1990年版，第46页。
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 ee。.wash.L.Rev.469一511(1956).
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 eeo.wash.L.Rev.502(1956).
①杨建顺:《行政裁量的运作及其监督》,《法学研究》2004年第1期。
②Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, 1971, p.32.
③Charles H. Koch, Jr., Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 502 (1986).
①D .J.ealligan，Discretiona叮Powers:A Legal study of omcial Discretion，elarendon Press，ox允rd，1956，P46一54.
②Keith Hawkins，The use ofDiscretion，elarendonPress，1992，p石1一65.
①Ronald Dworkin:Taking Rights seriously，Harvard university Press，1971，p31一32.
①Kenneth Culp Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry, University of Illinois Press, 1971, p.20.
②D.J.Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1986, p.64-85.
③Keith Hawkins, The Use of Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1992, p.11.
①参见余凌云:((对行政自由裁量概念的再思考》，《法制与社会发展》2002年第5期。
②参见曾蔚:《行政自由裁量权的概念及存在原因辨析》，《法学杂志》2005年第5期;张千帆:《行政自由裁量权的法律控制一一以美国行政法为视角》，《法律科学》2007年3期。①B叮an A.earner，Black’5 Law Dictiona以sth Ed.，Thomson west，2004，p499.②n_____^矛，______n，__，_，_T____r、二_￡______。‘，_P」甲，_________、工T__‘，nn月__，，n，
①薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1072页。
②D. J. Galligan: Discretionary Power: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1986, p.20.刀参见杨建顺:《行政裁量的运作及其监督》，《法学研究》2004年第1期。冲B叮an A.earner，Black’5 Law Dictiona叮，sth Ed.，Thomson west，2004，p499.
①se。1 .e.A.;17A.2
①44 U. S. C.§3504
①参见《吉林省规章规范性文件清理办法》(吉林省人民政府令第201号)http://wwwJI.gov.cn/zwxx/fggz/xzgz/加0902/t20090212_522633.html，访问时间:2010年1月20日19:20。
[2]余凌云.行政自由裁量论[M].北京:中国公安大学出版社,2005.
[3]朱新力.法治社会与行政裁量的基准研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[4]王名扬.法国行政法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1989.
[5]王名扬.美国行政法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995.
[6]叶必丰,周佑勇.行政规范研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[7]杨海坤,章志远.中国行政法基本理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[8]张国庆.现代公共政策[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[9]刘鑫帧.论裁量处分与不确定法律概念[M].台北:台湾五南出版公司,2005.
[10]龚祥瑞.比较宪法与行政法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[11]叶必丰.行政行为效力研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[12]杨建顺.日本行政法通论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1998.
[13]方世荣.论行政相对人[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[14]关保英.行政法的价值定位——效率、程序及其和谐[M].北京:中国政法大
学出版社,1999.
[15]陈新民.中国行政法学原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[16]彭文贤.行政生态学[M].台北:三民书局,1988.
[17]叶俊荣.面对行政程序法[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2002.
[18]翁岳生.行政法与现代法治国家[M].台北:祥新印刷有限公司,1989.
[19]吴庚.行政法之理论与实用[M].台北:三民书局,1998.
[20]张家洋.行政法[M].台北:三民书局股份有限公司,1991.
[21]林纪东.行政法[M].台北:三民书局,1980.
[22]城仲模.行政法之基础理论[M].台北:三民书局,1994.
[23][英]威廉·韦德.行政法[M].徐炳等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[24][英]马丁·洛林.公法与政治理论[M].郑戈译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[25][英]卡罗尔·哈洛,理查德·罗林斯.法律与行政(上卷)[M].杨伟东等译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[26][英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[27][英]哈耶克.自由秩序原理(上)[M].邓正来译,上海:三联书店,1997.
[28][法]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神(上册)[M].张雁深译.北京:商务印书馆,1987.
[29][美]理查德A.波斯纳.道德和法律理论的质疑[M].苏力译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[30][美]理查德B.斯图尔特.美国行政法的重构[M].沈岿译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[31][美]欧内斯特·盖尔霍恩,罗纳德·利文.行政法和行政程序法[M].黄列译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996.
[32][美]拉雷N.格斯顿.公共政策的制定——程序和原理[M].朱子译.重庆:重庆出版社,2001.
[33][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[34][美]布赖恩·莱特.法律与道德领域的客观性[M].高中等译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[35][美]霍贝尔.原始人的法(修订译本)[M].严存生等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[36][美]罗伯特·考特,托马斯·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军等译.上海:三联书店,1994.
[37][美]罗尓斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[38][德]哈特穆特·毛雷尔.行政法学总论[M].高家伟译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[39][德]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间:关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京:三联出版书店,2003.
[40][日]盐野宏.行政法[M].杨建顺译.北京:法律出版社,1999.
[41]崔卓兰,卢护锋.行政自制之生成与建构探讨[J].社会科学战线,2009(1).
[42]崔卓兰,刘福元.析行政自由裁量权的过度规则化[J].行政法学研究,2008(2).
[43]崔卓兰,刘福元.论行政自由裁量权的内部控制[J].中国法学,2009(4).
[44]崔卓兰,刘福元.行政自制——探索行政法理论视野之扩展[J].法制与社会发展,2008(3).
[45]崔卓兰,卢护锋.行政自制之途径探索[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2008(1).
[46]杨建顺.论行政裁量与司法审查——兼及行政自我拘束原则的理论依据[J].法商研究,2003(1).
[47]姜明安.行政裁量的软法规制[J].法学论坛,2009(4).
[48]周佑勇,邓小兵.行政裁量概念的比较观察[J].环球法律评论,2006(4).
[49]周佑勇.裁量基准的正当性问题研究[J].中国法学,2007(6).
[50]周佑勇,李俊.论行政裁量中的和解——以德国法和美国法为观察[J].行政法学研究,2007(1).
[51]周佑勇.行政裁量的治理[J].法学研究,2007(2).
[52]周佑勇.行政裁量的均衡原则[J].法学研究,2004(4).
[53]周佑勇,尹建国.论个人社会资本对行政裁量正义的影响[J].华东政法大学学报,2007(3).
[54]杨建顺.行政裁量的运作及其监督[J].法学研究,2004(1).
[55]余凌云.游走在规范与僵化之间——对金华行政裁量基准时间的思考[J].清华法学,2008(3).
[56]余凌云.对行政自由裁量概念的再思考[J].法制与社会发展,2002(5).
[57]余凌云.对行政机关滥用职权的司法审查——从若干判案看法院的偏好与问题[J].中国法学,2008(1).
[58]余凌云.论行政裁量目的不适当审查[J].法制与社会发展,2003(5).
[59]余凌云.行政诉讼法是行政法发展的一个分水岭吗?——透视行政法的支架性结构[J].清华法学,2009(1).
[60]王锡锌,章永乐.专家、公众与知识的运用——行政规则制定过程的一个分析框架[J].中国社会科学,2003(3).
[61]王锡锌.自由裁量权基准:技术的创新还是误用[J].法学研究,2008(5).
[62]王锡锌.裁量正义与行政正义[J].中外法学,2002(1).
[63]王锡锌.行政正当性需求的回归:中国新行政法概念的提出、逻辑与制度框架[J].清华法学,2009(2).
[64]张千帆.行政自由裁量权的法律控制——以美国行政法为视角[J].法律科学,2007(3).
[65]刘兆兴.行政裁量权的概念[J].中国法律年鉴,2002(1).
[66]王天华.裁量标准基本理论问题刍议[J].浙江学刊,2006(6).
[67]王天华.从裁量二元论到裁量一元论[J].行政法学研究,2006(1).
[68]皮协纯,凌云.亟待建立的专家论证制度——保证行政立法质量的重要措施[J].中国法学,1995(6).
[69]朱芒.论行政规定的性质——从行政规范体系角度的定位[J].中国法学,2003(1).
[70]朱芒.日本行政程序法中的裁量基准制度——作为程序正当性保障装置的内在构成[J].华东政法学院学报,2006(1).
[71]周旺生.重新研究法的渊源[J].比较法研究,2005(4).
[72]周旺生.法的渊源与法的形式界分[J].法制与社会发展,2005(4).
[73]周旺生.法的渊源意识的觉醒[J].现代法学,2005(4).
[74]叶必丰.行政规范法律地位的制度论证[J].中国法学,2003(5).
[75]朱应平.澳大利亚行政裁量的控制方法研究[J].比较法研究,2007(4).
[76]王海英,孙英.几个价值难题之我见[J].哲学研究,1992(19).
[77]季卫东.法律程序的意义[J].比较法学研究,1993(1).
[78]朱新力,骆梅英.论裁量基准的制约因素及建构路径[J].法学论坛,2009(4).
[79]沈岿.行政诉讼举证责任个性化研究之初步[J].中外法学,2000(1).
[80]沈岿.行政诉讼确立“行政裁量明显不当”标准之议[J].法商研究,2004(4).
[81]郑春燕.论“行政裁量理由明显不当”标准——走出行政裁量主观性审查的困境[J].国家行政学院学报,2007(4).
[82]郑春燕.论裁量视角下的行政契约[J].浙江学刊,2007(5).
[83]郑春燕.取决于行政任务的不确定法律概念定性——再问行政裁量概念的界定[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(5).
[84]郑春燕.论行政裁量中的政策考量——以“运动式”执法为例[J].法商研究,2008(2).
[85]小早川光郎著,王天华译.行政诉讼与裁量统制[J].行政法学研究,2006(3).
[86]陈景辉.原则、自由裁量与依法裁判[J].法学研究,2006(5).
[87]王明生、黎鹂.行政裁量权概念比较研究[J].中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版),2007(6).
[88]王贵松.行政裁量的内在构造[J].法学家,2009(2).
[89]宋功德.行政裁量控制的模式选择:硬法控制模式的失灵催生混合法控制模式[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[90]王天华.行政裁量与判断过程审查方式[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[91]宋华琳.基层行政执法裁量权研究[J].清华法学,2009(3).
[92]尹权.论行政惯例的司法审查[J].法律科学,2008(1).
[93]曾蔚.行政自由裁量权的概念及存在原因辨析[J].法学杂志,2005(5).
[94]周佑勇.作为过程的行政调查[J].法商研究,2006(1).
[95]于立深.论政府的信息形成权及当事人义务[J].法制与社会发展,2009(2).
[96]刘飞宇.从档案公开看政府信息公开制度的完善[A].公法研究:第四卷[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[97]于立深.成本效益分析方法在行政法上的运用——以“行政许可法”第20条、21条为例[A].公法研究:第四卷[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[98][美]洛伊.通向奴役的两条道路:自由主义,保守主义和行政权力[A].[美]埃尔金等.新宪政论——为美好的社会设计政治制度[C].周叶谦译.上海:三联书店,1997.
[99]柴会群.上海“倒钩”执法,立法司法难辞其咎[N].南方周末,2009-10-29.
[100]陈鹏庭.看着自己杀人,嫌犯两次痛哭[N].青年报,2008-7-25.
[1]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry [M].Urbana, Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press, 1971.
[2]RONALD DWORKIN.Taking Rights Seriously [M].Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.
[3]D.J.GALLIGAN.Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
[4]KEITH HAWKINS. The Use of Discretion [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
[5]FRANK JOHNSON GOODNOW.The Principles of the Administrative Law of the United States [M].New York: Putnam, 1905.
[6]STEPHEN G. BREYER, RICHARD B. STEWART, CASS R. SUNSTAIN, ADRIAN VERMEULE. Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy [M].6th ed. New York: Aspen Publisher, 2006.
[7]MARTIN LOUGHLIN. Public Law and Political Theory [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
[8]ROBERT BALDWIN. Rule and Government [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
[9]CORNELIUS M. KERWIN. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy [M].3rd ed. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2003.
[10]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Administrative Law Treatise [M].2nd ed.San Diego:K.C .Davis Pub. Co., 1978.
[11]STEPHEN G. BREYER, RICHARD B.STEWART, CASS R. SUNSTAIN , MATTHEW L. SPITZER. Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text and Cases [M].5th ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002.
[12]FRED RIGGS. The Ecology of Public Administration [M].New Delhi: Asia Publishing House, 1962.
[13]MICHAEL ASIMOW, ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD, RONALD M. LEVIN. State and Federal Administrative Law [M].2nd ed.Saint Paul: West Group, 1998.
[14]GRARY C. BRYNER. Bureaucratic Discretion [M].New York: Pergamon Press, 1987.
[15]MATTHEW D. ADLER, ERIC A. POSNER. Cost Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
[16]RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., SHAPIRO, PAUL R. VERKUIL. Administrative Law and Process [M].3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 1999.
[17]KENNETH CULP DAVIS. Discretionary Justice in Europe and America [M].6th ed. Urbana, Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press, 1976.
[18]ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD. State Administrative Rule Making [M].Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company Press, 1986.
[19]KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, GERALD GUNTHER. Constitutional Law, 6th ed. [M].New York: Foundation Press, 2007.
[20]HARVARD LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION. Administrative Discretion in Zoning[J].Harvard Law Review, 1969, 82: 668.
[21]ALAN B. MORRISON.Administrative Agencies are Just Like Legislatures and Courts-Except When They’re Not[J].Administrative Law Review, 2007, 59: 79-118.
[22]ARTHUR EARL BONFIELD. Administrative Procedure Acts in an Age of Comparative Scarcity[J].Iowa Law Review, 1990, 75: 845.
[23]JOHN BELL. The Expansion of Judicial, Review over Discretionary Powers in France[J].Public Law, 1986, (Spring): 99-121.
[24]RICHARD ROSE. Inheritance in Public Policy: Change without Choice in Contemporary Britain[J].Public Law, 1995, (Summer): 340-342.
[25]ERNEST GIGLIO. Rights, Liberties and Public Policy[J].Public Law, 1995, (Winter): 671-673.
[26]ROSE CRANSTON. Law, Government and Public Policy[J].Public Law, 1988, (Winter): 647-648.
[27]DENNIS J GALLIGAN. Due Process And Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures[J].Public Law, 1997, (Autumn): 572-574.
[28]DOUGLAS WASS. Check and Balance in Public Policy Making [J].Public Law, 1987, (Summer): 181-201.
[29]A.P. LE SUEUR. Public Polices and the Adoption Act [J].Public Law, 1991, (Autumn): 326-331.
[30]D.J GALLIGAN. Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion[J].Public Law, 1988, (Summer): 289-292.
[31]DAVID CAMPBELL. Promoting Participation: Law or Politics1999 [J].Public Law, 2000, (Summer): 343-345.
[32]D.J. GALLIGAN. Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion [J].Public Law, 1988, (Summer): 289-292.
[33]KEITH HAWKINS. Making Regulatory Policy[J].Public Law, 1992, (Spring): 173-176.
[34]MICHAEL HARRIS. Administrative Justice in the 21st Century [J].Cambridge Law Journal, 2000, 59(2): 398-402.
[35]DANIEL A. FARBER. Rethinking the Role of Cost-Benefit Analysis [J].University of Chicago Law Review, 2009, 76: 1355.
[36]DAPHEN BARAK-EREZ. The Administrative Process As A Domain Of Conflicting Interests [J].Theoretical Inquiries In Law, 2005, 6: 193.
[37]MATTHEW D. ADLER. The Positive Political Theory of Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Comment on John-Ston[J].University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2002, 150: 1429.
[38] RUSSELL B. KOROBKIN.Behavioral Analysis and Legal Form: Rules VS. Standards Revisited[J].Oregon Law Review, 2000, 79: 23.
[39]ROBERT A. ANTHONY. David A. CODEVILLA.Pro-Ossification: A Harder Look At Agency Policy Statements[J].Wake Forest Law Review 1996, 31: 667.
[40]Charles H. Koch, Jr. Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion[J].Geoge Washington Law Review,1986, 54: 469.
[41] J.M.ROGERS. A Fresh Look at the Agency Discretion [J].Tulane Law Review, 1983, 57: 766-835.
[42] JODY FREEMAN, Private Parties, Public Functions, and the New Administrative Law[J].Administrative Law Review, 2000, 52: 813.
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 eeo.wash.L.Rev.469(1956).
①[美]霍贝尔:《原始人的法》(修订译本)，严存生等译，法律出版社2006年版，第18一19页。
②[德]哈特穆特·毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》，高家伟译，法律出版社2000年版，第124页。
⑧翁岳生:《行政法》(上)，翰芦图书出版公司2000年版，第205页。
①周佑勇、邓小兵:《行政裁量概念的比较观察》，《环球法律评论》2006年第4期。
②Kenneth eulp Davis，Discretiona叮Justice:A Prelimina叮Inqui叮，university oflllinoisPress，1971，p.15.
⑧J .M.Rogers，A Fresh Look attheAgencyDiscretion，57Tul.L.Rev.766一535(1953).
①翁岳生:《行政法与现代法治国家》，台湾大学法律从书编辑委员会1990年版，第46页。
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 ee。.wash.L.Rev.469一511(1956).
①eharles H.Koch，Jr.，Judicial Review ofAdministrative Discretion，54 eeo.wash.L.Rev.502(1956).
①杨建顺:《行政裁量的运作及其监督》,《法学研究》2004年第1期。
②Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, 1971, p.32.
③Charles H. Koch, Jr., Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 502 (1986).
①D .J.ealligan，Discretiona叮Powers:A Legal study of omcial Discretion，elarendon Press，ox允rd，1956，P46一54.
②Keith Hawkins，The use ofDiscretion，elarendonPress，1992，p石1一65.
①Ronald Dworkin:Taking Rights seriously，Harvard university Press，1971，p31一32.
①Kenneth Culp Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry, University of Illinois Press, 1971, p.20.
②D.J.Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1986, p.64-85.
③Keith Hawkins, The Use of Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1992, p.11.
①参见余凌云:((对行政自由裁量概念的再思考》，《法制与社会发展》2002年第5期。
②参见曾蔚:《行政自由裁量权的概念及存在原因辨析》，《法学杂志》2005年第5期;张千帆:《行政自由裁量权的法律控制一一以美国行政法为视角》，《法律科学》2007年3期。①B叮an A.earner，Black’5 Law Dictiona以sth Ed.，Thomson west，2004，p499.②n_____^矛，______n，__，_，_T____r、二_￡______。‘，_P」甲，_________、工T__‘，nn月__，，n，
①薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1072页。
②D. J. Galligan: Discretionary Power: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Clarendon Press, 1986, p.20.刀参见杨建顺:《行政裁量的运作及其监督》，《法学研究》2004年第1期。冲B叮an A.earner，Black’5 Law Dictiona叮，sth Ed.，Thomson west，2004，p499.
①se。1 .e.A.;17A.2
①44 U. S. C.§3504
①参见《吉林省规章规范性文件清理办法》(吉林省人民政府令第201号)http://wwwJI.gov.cn/zwxx/fggz/xzgz/加0902/t20090212_522633.html，访问时间:2010年1月20日19:20。