法学研究
法學研究
법학연구
Cass Journal of Law
2014年
4期
138~157
,共null页
行政信访 信访处理 权利救济 信访条例
行政信訪 信訪處理 權利救濟 信訪條例
행정신방 신방처리 권리구제 신방조례
administrative letter-and-visit system, handling of complaints by letters and visits, remedies for rights, Regulations on CoTnplaint Letters and Visits
《信访条例》将行政信访定位为诉讼、行政复议和仲裁的补充渠道，承袭这些机制处理纠纷的核心技术，预设了处理信访事项的“规范一决定”裁决模式。经检验，该模式预设与行政信访处理争议的制度效能不足具有明显相关性。实践中，行政信访处理的事项，多属“利益分配、调整型决策”和“抽象法律、政策目标落实”引发的争议。此两类事项通常缺乏具体的指引规则，该模式易被作为回绝信访诉求的制度庇护。即便进行裁量处理，裁决机制也因“利益分配、调整型”决策具有“多中心任务”特征而难以适用，对于要求充分实现法律或政策目标的诉求，裁决机制难以提供有效的救济方案。
《信訪條例》將行政信訪定位為訴訟、行政複議和仲裁的補充渠道，承襲這些機製處理糾紛的覈心技術，預設瞭處理信訪事項的“規範一決定”裁決模式。經檢驗，該模式預設與行政信訪處理爭議的製度效能不足具有明顯相關性。實踐中，行政信訪處理的事項，多屬“利益分配、調整型決策”和“抽象法律、政策目標落實”引髮的爭議。此兩類事項通常缺乏具體的指引規則，該模式易被作為迴絕信訪訴求的製度庇護。即便進行裁量處理，裁決機製也因“利益分配、調整型”決策具有“多中心任務”特徵而難以適用，對于要求充分實現法律或政策目標的訴求，裁決機製難以提供有效的救濟方案。
《신방조례》장행정신방정위위소송、행정복의화중재적보충거도，승습저사궤제처리규분적핵심기술，예설료처리신방사항적“규범일결정”재결모식。경검험，해모식예설여행정신방처리쟁의적제도효능불족구유명현상관성。실천중，행정신방처리적사항，다속“이익분배、조정형결책”화“추상법률、정책목표락실”인발적쟁의。차량류사항통상결핍구체적지인규칙，해모식역피작위회절신방소구적제도비호。즉편진행재량처리，재결궤제야인“이익분배、조정형”결책구유“다중심임무”특정이난이괄용，대우요구충분실현법률혹정책목표적소구，재결궤제난이제공유효적구제방안。
The Regulations on Complaint Letters and Visits, by positioning the administrative letterand-visit system as a supplement to litigation, arbitration, administrative reconsideration and other statutory remedies with the same core dispute-resolution techniques as these remedies, pre-set a ＂＇ norm-decision＂ mode of adjudication. Whether this pre-set model is directly related to the low insti- tutional efficiency of dispute resolution of administrative letter-and-visit system is a question that can be answered only through examination. An examination of the objects of this model, namely the matters for which administrative letter-and-visit system actually has residual jurisdiction relative to the statutory remedies, indicates that there is indeed an apparent correlation between the two. In practice, matters dealt with by the administrative letter-and-visit system are mostly disputes arising from ＂ decision-makings on the distribution and adjustments of benefits＂ and ＂implementation of abstract legal or policy objectives＂. Since there is usually no specific guiding rule for the resolution of these kinds of disputes, this model tends to be used as an institutional ＂asylum＂ for the rejection of petitioners＇ claims. Even such petitions are accepted, it is still difficult to apply this model because of the ＂polycentric task＂ nature of ＂decision-makings on distribution and adjustments of benefits＂. It is also hard to provide an effective remedy scheme for claims for the full realization of the objectives of laws and policies.
