权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Study on Administrative Law Litigation Forms Viewed from the Angles of Comparative Law and Legislative History.

比较法和立法史视角下的行政法诉讼形式研究。

基本信息

批准号：
63450068
负责人：
TAKAYANAGI Shin-ichi
金额：
$ 1.73万
依托单位：
Senshu University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (B)
财政年份：
1988
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1988 至 1990
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

(1). In the Japanese administrative law litigation system, we have a principle that plaintiff can bring suit only after administrative action has done ; in other words, plaintiff cannot file injunctions to prevent illegal administrative actions nor sue for mandamus to order an administrative agency to enforce certain statutory duties in cases where the said agency neglects them. Prevailing academic lawyers are supporting this principle even if there are quite a few criticism against this principle. Where has it come from? The answer : from the German constitutional monarchical system in 19th century.(2). Enlightened Absolutism in late 18th century German states fell down under the shocks of French Revolution, and they were forced to transfer to constitutionalized states. However, the Vienna Regime constructed by Metternich had German kings establish the Monarchical Principle in their own territorial states. According to this principle the king held, in spite of the introduction of the … More representative constitution, not only sovereignty but also the pre-constitutional absolutely perfect administrative power, and he should be restricted by the statutes enacted by the national assembly only inthe exercise of the administrative powers. That is to say that the administrative power, free in itself, formulates the public policies for itself, executes them with its own power and shall be restricted by statutes only from without. Rights and duties between government and citizens are all made up by the initiative and the will of the administrative agency, and the enactment of a statute itself does not impose any enforceable duty upon the administrative agency. Thus, as a matter of course, there could be no judicial remedy before administrative actions.(3). In England, on the other hand, there has been established the Parliamentarism, the system of democratic sovereignty. Since administrative agencies there are to be formed and given powers as a necessity by statutes, there should be judicial remedies not only after, but also before administrative actions : injunction and mandamus, etc.(4). In West Germany after the war, they reorganized the administrative litigation system under the deep penetration of the state of affairs mentioned above 2.(5). In Japan an out-dated litigation system is sustained under the lack of insight and reflection. Less

（一）.在日本的行政法诉讼制度中，我们有一个原则，即原告只能在行政行为已经发生之后才能提起诉讼;换句话说，原告不能提出禁止非法行政行为的禁令，也不能在行政机关忽视某些法定义务的情况下提出要求行政机关履行某些法定义务的义务。主流的法学理论家支持这一原则，尽管对这一原则有不少批评。它是从哪里来的？答案是：源于19世纪世纪德国的君主立宪制。（二）、18世纪世纪后期，启蒙专制主义的德意志国家在法国大革命的冲击下土崩瓦解，被迫向宪政国家过渡。梅特涅建立的维也纳政权使德意志诸王在自己的领土上确立了君主制。根据这一原则，国王举行，尽管介绍了 ...更多信息代议制宪法不仅是主权，而且是宪法前绝对完善的行政权，只有在行使行政权时才受国民议会制定的法规的制约。也就是说，行政权力本身是自由的，它为自己制定公共政策，并以自己的权力执行这些政策，只受来自外部的法规的限制。政府与公民之间的权利和义务都是由行政机关的主动性和意志所决定的，制定法律本身并不对行政机关施加任何强制性的义务。因此，在采取行政行动之前，当然不可能有司法补救办法。（三）、另一方面，在英国，已经建立了君主制，即民主主权制度。由于那里的行政机构必须由法规组成并赋予权力，因此不仅在行政行为之后，而且在行政行为之前，都应该有司法救济：禁令和履行义务等。（四）、战后的西德德国，正是在上述状况的深刻渗透下，对行政诉讼制度进行了重新梳理。（五）、日本的诉讼制度是在缺乏洞察力和反思的情况下维持的。少