行政规划的法律性质研究..docVIP

行政规划的法律性质研究. 　　摘 要：行政规划法律性质的不同观点有单一性质说和非单一性质说等，各有其优点和不足。行政规划并不现实地产生、变更或消灭权利义务关系，人们的传统观念认为只有通过后续行为才能现实化，规划本身不以法律效果为目的。但这种观念值得反思，影响和限制也是行政机关追求的效果，某些细部的、具体的强制性规划的影响和限制具有“直接性”和“必然性”，应视为直接的法律效果。行政规划分别构成不同的行政行为和事实行为，并有自身的特点。目前对于“规划确定程序”有诸多的认识误区，规划和确定规划裁决是两个独立的行为，规划的性质由规划的自身内容和因素决定，那种认为只能由“确定规划裁决”的性质决定规划的性质的观点是不妥当的。具体的强制性规划的争议解决应针对规划本身，而不是针对后续行为，以尽早化解矛盾。 　　关键词： 行政规划；法律性质；法律效果 　　Abstract:The competing theories of the legal nature of administrative planning cover the mono-nature doctrine and the multi-nature doctrine, both of which have their merits as well as demerits. Administrative planning per se does not imply practically incurring, altering or fulfilling right or obligation. Traditionally, it is thought that only with afterward operations can right and obligation be put into practice, and legal effect is hardly the inherent purpose of planning. However, such a notion should be put under suspicion. Indeed, it may well be that impact and restriction is the effect sought by administrative agencies. Further, some partial and specific mandatory planning is characterized by 揹irectness?and 搉ecessity?and should be held to have immediate legal effects. Administrative planning may lead to distinct administrative act and factual act, each of which has its respective features. As to the notion of 損lanning determines procedure,?one may find many fallacies. Planning and the decision to have a planning are two separate behaviors. The nature of planning is decided only by its own contents and factors and it is an error to assume that it is decided by the decision to have a planning. The solution of the dispute on a specific mandatory planning should center on planning itself rather than behaviors thereafter so as to settle the problem as early as possible. 　　Key Words: administrative planning; legal nature; legal effect 　　 　　“规划（Planning）无疑已经成为正在膨胀的行政国家的一部分”［1］。伴随着行政规划的广泛运用和对人们权益影响的日益加大 ，行政法学对其进行的研究也逐渐升温，而行政规划的法律性质成为首当其冲的基础性问题。近日拜读了王青斌先生的论文《论行政规划的法