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

(1)在日本的行政诉讼制度中，我们有一个原则，即原告只有在行政行为发生后才能提起诉讼；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职责的情况下起诉行政当局命令其执行某些法定职责。虽然也有不少批评意见，但学界法律界的主流人士还是支持这一原则。它是从哪里来的？答案：来自19世纪德国的君主立宪制。开明专制主义18世纪晚期的德意志国家在法国大革命的冲击下垮台，被迫转变为立宪国家。然而，梅特涅建立的维也纳政权让德国国王在他们自己的领土国家建立了君主原则。根据这一原则，国王认为，尽管引入了更具代表性的宪法，但不仅是主权，而且是宪法前绝对完善的行政权力，他应该受到国民议会制定的法规的限制，只有在行使行政权力时。这就是说，行政权力本身是自由的，它为自己制定公共政策，用自己的权力执行这些政策，只受外部法规的限制。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构成的，制定法律本身并不赋予行政机关任何可执行的义务。因此，作为理所当然的事情，在行政行为之前不可能有司法救济。另一方面，在英国，已经建立了议会制，民主主权制度。由于行政机关的成立和权力的授予是法律的需要，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：禁令和命令等(4)。战后的西德在上述事态的深刻渗透下，对行政诉讼制度进行了重组(5)。在日本，陈旧的诉讼制度在缺乏认识和反思的情况下得以延续。少

(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