【作者】 白云锋；

【导师】 叶必丰；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2021， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪八十年代以来,随着人类实践的深入,特别是以核技术、信息产业、化学工业等为代表的文明的发展,人类进入风险社会。为了应对风险社会的挑战,行政机关不得不进行内在变革,实施不同于以往的风险应对举措。传统内部行政法的基本架构诞生于秩序行政时期,历经给付行政的改造。其组织法以科层制为创制模型,并历经民营化浪潮中的组织分散化实践;行为法以行政行为为理论构造核心,实际上呈现出由连续的行为群组成的多阶段嵌套结构;责任法则呈现出由外部组织责任向内部个体责任转化的链式结构。这本质上是一种由多层级组织、多阶段行为、多主体责任构成的“多阶分化型内部行政法构造”模式。这一模式以专业、分工、威慑的法律机制设置,将复杂社会问题进行分割化约,有益于应对工业社会中不断分化的社会事务。但这种多阶分化型构造本身存在自我膨胀、过度碎片化、低效等问题。进入风险社会之后,多阶分化型构造更加显出其灵活、协同和激励需求上的不适应性。在风险社会中,人们处在风险随时可能爆发的高度盖然性以及风险正在爆发的紧急性之中。风险的系统性与复杂性要求对传统的分散组织决策权进行整合;风险的突发性与快速蔓延性要求对层级多阶行为方式进行整合;风险的集体人为性与超越智识性要求对链式的责任机制进行整合。无论是综合性的指挥部类的机构,上下整合的越级直报系统,还是人员激励整合的免责机制,都是行政在一定的时期内,面对急剧增长的行政任务,致力于将行政的组织、行为、人员等要素整合为一个整体的举措,本质上呈现的是一种风险行政有别于秩序行政与给付行政“多阶分化型内部行政法构造”模式的“一体整合型内部行政法构造”模式。理论基础上,内部行政法的一体型构造模式是在行政一体原则基础上的展开,在尊重行政一体原则规范主义固有内涵的同时,对于其功能主义面向的拓展。理论脉络上,与工业社会初期、中期和成熟期大体对应,行政法经历了权力集中的传统科层政府阶段、强调权力分散的民营化阶段,以及面对过度分化强调权力整合的整体政府阶段,一体型内部行政法构造出现于整个理论脉络的第三阶段。内部结构上,传统行政法以组织法、行为法和救济法为整体架构的三部分,不区分内部行政法与外部行政法。基于行政机关视角以及行政法作为控权法、客观法本质的面向,行政法实际上呈现出“组织法——行为法——责任法”三分架构。由此,行政法可以被区分为互相并列的内部行政法与外部行政法双层结构体系,内部行政法与外部行政法均包含组织法、行为法和责任法三部分结构。内部行政法的一体型构造因此可以进一步被区分为内部组织法的一体、内部行为法的一体与内部责任法的一体。目前的一体整合型内部行政法构造仅仅显出萌芽,相关实践与制度还面临规范性不足、功能难以充分发挥等问题。问题的根本原因在于这些一体型行政法机制依然内嵌于传统的多阶分化型行政法构造之中,因而有必要基于一体行政的基本精神,对一体整合型行政法构造进行进一步的内在结构的展开与规范化的塑造。就组织一体构造而言,指挥部之类的机构是整合职能部门权力的尝试,面临法律属性定位模糊,行使权力依据不足,责任归属困难等理论、规范与实践问题。之所以要通过指挥部类机构整合权力,是因为基础性立法确立的“强政府——‘弱’部门”的组织结构被部门主义立法实践颠倒为“弱政府——强部门”结构。“弱政府——强部门”结构造成部门权力的膨胀,部门之间的权力分割与内耗,纵向上压缩了政府权力的空间,制约了整体功能的发挥。为了纠正失衡的格局,适应现行实践对于行政统一行使权力的需求,必须上收政府部门的权力为政府统一分配行使,明确政府部门的权力不是天然拥有的,而是由基础性法律赋予政府后再由政府分配的。政府上收政府部门的权力具有规范基础,除了在中央政府层面不能对职能部门进行达至职能部门设立、撤销或合并等同性质的权力上收调整外,其余规定与实践做法,包括部门法中的主管部门条款均不构成政府上收职能部门权力的障碍。就行为一体构造而言,传染病信息网络直报系统、“必要时可以越级上报”规定等越级行政制度,可以节约行政时间,减少信息传输损耗,提高风险应对效率。在结构标准下,越级行政分为上级对下级的越级行政与下级对上级的越级行政。除越级上报信息外,越级行政还具有越级晋升、越级检举、越级行文、越级拨款、越级督查、越级管辖等规范构造。越级行政的条件分为实体条件与程序条件:实体条件是指“事件本身满足重大或特别重大的情形”或“事件超过本地区地理范围”或“事件影响超过本地区政府风险应对能力”或“出现人员伤、亡的情形”,程序条件是经批准。在法律效果上,越级行政并不意味着对于下级机关本身行政职责的豁免。越级行政实效性保障的基础在于人大和政府“双重领导”的结构,地方各级政府在更本质的意义上应向本级人大负责。这决定了越级行政并不是对中级政府领导的破坏,而是基于人大授权而必须履行的职责。越级行政实效性保障的具体措施包括,越级行政的条件、程序的规范化,连带责任机制的设置。就责任一体构造而言,执法免责可以发挥责任机制激励执法者勇于担当以及行政作为一个整体应对风险的功能。风险行政执法免责的基础在于,执法者风险决策行为的自由意志在某种程度上受到极大压迫,如按照常态社会之下责任法规则追究责任,设置严厉的责任追究机制,无法满足责任承担的公平要求,也会产生逆向激励的效果。由此,在风险社会中,责任本质由道义责任部分地向社会责任转化。追责机制越来越多的止步于组织责任,而不再向个人责任延伸。规范上执法免责的制度规定可以被拆分为“紧急情况”与“合理注意义务”两个要件。构成执法免责的紧急情况可以有法律上的紧急情况和事实上的紧急情况两类。法律上对于紧急情况最直接的判断标准,是国家或部分地区依照《宪法》等法律的规定被宣布进入了紧急状态。事实上的紧急情形,可以从时间、信息和风险的有限与复杂程度等视角展开判断。风险行政中执法者的注意义务要高于普通公民的注意义务,但低于常态行政执法者的注意义务和专家的注意义务。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the 1980 s,with the expansion of the scope of practice of human beings,especially the development of a civilization represented by nuclear technology,information industry and chemical industry,human beings have entered the time of a risk society.To cope with the challenges brought thereafter,administrative organs have to undergo internal reform and implement measures that are totally different from those taken in the past to cope with risks.The basic structure of traditional internal administrative law was born in the time of order administration and has been transformed by supply administration.Its organizational law originates from the hierarchical system,and has experienced decentralization of organizations in the privatization wave;the behavior law takes administrative behavior as the core of the theoretical structure,presenting a multilevel nested structure consists of continuous behavior groups;the liability law presents a chain structure,transforming from external organizational liabilities to internal individual liabilities.This is essentially a "multilevel differentiated internal administrative law structure" model made up of multilevel organizations,multilevel behaviors,and multi-subject liabilities.This model is set up based on a professional,labor-dividing and deterrent legal mechanism,which can help handle the differentiated social affairs in the industrial society by segmenting complicated social issues.However,such a multilevel differentiated structure is over-fragmented,inefficient,and vulnerable to self-inflation.self-inflation,over-fragmented,and inefficiency.As the time of risk society arrives,the multilevel differentiated structure becomes increasingly inadaptable to its demands for flexibility,coordination and incentive.In a risk society,people live under the high probability that risks may occur or the pressure that risks are out breaking.The systematicness and complexity of risks make it necessary to integrate the decision-making power of traditional decentralized organizations;the suddenness and rapid spread of risks,make it necessary to integrate multilevel hierarchical behaviors;the collective artificiality and the intelligence transcending nature of risks make it necessary to integrate the chain accountability mechanism.Be it organizations similar to comprehensive command departments,integrated leapfrog direct reporting systems or integrated exemption mechanisms for personnel motivation,the mission is the same—integrating the organization,behavior and personnel involved in administration as a whole to cope with soaring administrative tasks within a certain period.This in its root represents a risk administration,an “integrated internal administrative law structure” mode differing from the “multilevel differentiated internal administrative law structure” of order administration and supply administration.Theoretically speaking,the integrated structure of internal administrative law is implemented on the basis of the integration principle of administration,and is an extension of the functionalism while respecting the inherent connotation of the normative principle of administration integration.In the theoretical context,in the preliminary,medium and mature stage of the industrial society,the administrative law has experienced the traditional bureaucratic government stage with concentrated power,the privatization stage with emphasis on decentralization,and the whole-government stage with excessive emphasis on differentiation and integration of power respectively.The integrated internal administrative law structure appeared in the third stage of the whole theoretical context.As for the internal structure,traditional administrative law consists of the organization law,behavior law and relief law,without distinguishing internal administrative law and external administrative law.From the perspective of administrative organs and based on the nature of administrative law as a power control law and objective law,administrative law actually consists of three parts— "organization law-behavior law-liability law".In this light,administrative law can be identified as a two-tier system made up of internal administrative law and external administrative law,with the two being parallel to each other and consisting of such three parts as organization law,behavior law and liability law.Therefore,the integrated structure of internal administrative law can be defined as the integration of organizational law,internal behavior law and internal liability law.Currently,the integrated structure of internal administrative law has just emerged,and problems like insufficient regulations and difficulties in giving full play to its functions still exist in relevant practices and systems.The root of these problems lies in the fact that these integrated administrative law mechanisms are still embedded in the traditional multilevel and differentiated administrative law structure.To solve the problems,it is necessary to further expand the internal structure and regulate the structure of the integrated administrative law based on the basic spirit of integrated administration.As far as the integrated organization structure is concerned,organizations like headquarters represent an attempt to integrate the power of functional departments,faced with problems related to theories,regulations and practice,including vague positioning of legal attributes,insufficient basis for power exercising and difficulty in the ascription of responsibilities.It is necessary to integrate power through headquarters,because the organizational structure of “strong government-weak department” defined by basic legislation has been reversed into a "weak government-strong department" structure in departmental legislation practice,which has led to the expansion of departmental power and the division of power and internal friction between departments,vertically restricting the power and overall function of the government.In order to correct such an unbalanced pattern and meet current demands for unified exercise of administrative power,the power of government departments must be allocated and exercised by the government in a unified manner,which indicates that such power is not owned by government departments naturally,but allocated by the government after basic laws empower the government.There is a normative basis to be observed by the government in reclaiming the power of government departments.The central government is only unable to reclaim the power of functional departments concerning the setup,cancellation or amalgamation of such departments.Any other provisions or practices,including provisions on competent departments in the department law,shall not constitute an obstacle for the government to reclaim the power of functional departments.As far as the integrated structure of behavior is concerned,the infectious disease direct reporting system and administrative systems allowing “leapfrog reporting when it is necessary” could help save time,reduce information transmission costs and improve risk responding efficiency.According to the structure standard,leapfrog administration can be divided into superior’s leapfrog administration against the inferior and inferior’s leapfrog administration against the superior.In addition to leapfrog information reporting,leapfrog administration also includes leapfrog promotion,leapfrog impeaching,leapfrog writing,leapfrog funding,leapfrog supervision,and leapfrog jurisdiction.The preconditions for leapfrog administration include substantive conditions and procedural conditions.The former refers to “the incident is a major or ordinarily severe one” or “the incident exceeds the geographic scope of the region” or “the impact of the incident exceeds the risk response capability of the local government” or “the incident has caused personal injury or death",while the latter means that approval is required.When it comes to legal effects,leapfrog administration does not mean releasing the inferior organs from their administrative liabilities.The dual-leadership of the People’s Congress and the government provides fundamental support for ensuring the efficiency of leapfrog administration,and local governments at all levels should be accountable to the people’s congress at the same level in a more pragmatic way.This indicates that the leapfrog administration would not interfere in the leadership of intermediate governments,and would only fulfill the responsibilities as authorized by the People’s Congress.Specific measures that could help ensure the effectiveness of leapfrog administration include standardizing conditions and procedures of leapfrog administration and setting up a joint liability mechanism.As far as the integrated structure of liability is concerned,law enforcement exemption can give full play to the role of the liability mechanism to encourage law enforcers to take responsibility and help take administration as a whole to respond to risks.The basis of risk administrative law enforcement exemption lies in the fact that law enforcers’ risk decision-making behavior is restricted substantially.If the accountability is traced according to relevant laws and regulations of the normal society,the requirements for justice in responsibility bearing could not be met by simply setting up a strict accountability system and even lead to adverse effects.Therefore,in a risk society,the nature of liability to partially transformed from moral liability to social liability,with the accountability mechanism increasingly relying on organization liability instead of extending to individual liability.Regulations on law enforcement exemption can be divided into two major elements as "emergency events" and "reasonable duty of care".Emergencies constituting law enforcement exemptions can be divided into two types: de jure emergencies and de facto emergencies.The clearest criterion for judging whether a de jure emergency occurs is that a country or some regions are announced entering an emergency state according to relevant regulations in the Constitution and other laws.De facto emergencies can be identified according to the limitation on and complexity of time,information and risks.The reasonable duty of care in the risk administrative law is higher than that of ordinary citizens,but lower than that of normal administrative law enforcers and experts.更多还原