CAJ | 학술논문

传统的行政诉讼法学理论认为,行政指导是一种事实行为不应该受到司法审查。我国的司法解释也规定行政指导不属于法院行政诉讼的受案范围。在20世纪80年代以后,我国学者开始对行政指导可诉性进行探讨。但是,我国加入WTO以后,以WTO为视角研究行政指导可诉性的成果十分少见。行政指导不可诉与WTO规则的要求相冲突,WTO成员国对行政指导诉讼的认识也经历了一个由不接受到逐步接受的过程。只要行政相对人的权利义务受到了行政指导的不利影响,都应当在司法审查的范围之内。
전통적행정소송법학이론인위,행정지도시일충사실행위불응해수도사법심사。아국적사법해석야규정행정지도불속우법원행정소송적수안범위。재20세기80년대이후,아국학자개시대행정지도가소성진행탐토。단시,아국가입WTO이후,이WTO위시각연구행정지도가소성적성과십분소견。행정지도불가소여WTO규칙적요구상충돌,WTO성원국대행정지도소송적인식야경력료일개유불접수도축보접수적과정。지요행정상대인적권리의무수도료행정지도적불리영향,도응당재사법심사적범위지내。
The traditional theory of administrative litigation tells that, administrative guidance is fact behavior and should not be subject to judicial review. China＇s judicial interpretation also provides administrative guidance does not belong to the scope of accepting. After 80 years in the 20th century, scholars began to explore the actionable research of administrative guidance. However, after China＇s accession to WTO,the research cases results of administrative guidance from the WTO perspective is very rare. The unactionable characteristic of administrative guidance conflicts with the requirements of WTO rules, WTO members understand the proceedings of administrative guidance has also experienced a gradual process from not recewing to accepting. As long as the relative rights and obligations of the executive affected adversely by the administrative guidance, all should be within the scope of judicial review.