从合理原则走向统一的比例原则-北大法宝.docVIP

【法宝引证码】 CLI.A.1224350? 原文链接： HYPERLINK /qikan/37cbe8faa8bc00fee983a0dbe232454abdfb.html \t _blank /qikan/37cbe8faa8bc00fee983a0dbe232454abdfb.html 从合理原则走向统一的比例原则  期刊名称： HYPERLINK /journal/articlebyclass?ClassCodeKey=1, \t _blank 《中国法学》 期刊年份： HYPERLINK /journal/findarticle?FilterItems.JournalYear=2016 \t _blank 2016 摘要： 我国行政法学先后引介了英国的合理原则和德国的比例原则作为制约行政裁量权的基本原则，但如何协调两者之间的适用关系，却始终未予讨论。长期采用合理原则的英国，在涉及人权的案件中，已引入比例原则作为司法审查的依据，成此消彼长之势。其根源在于，合理原则立基于禁止越权原则，以确保行政行为的合法性为宗旨，不能完全胜任人权保障的时代使命；而比例原则则在确保行政行为合法性的基础上，进一步把人权保障作为其主要目的，对人权的保护更为有力。从当下我国人民法院所担负的基本权利保障任务和采行的积极主动司法政策来看，统一采用比例原则为评价基准更符合我国法治建设和人权保障的需要。 英文摘要： The reasonable principle of Britain and the proportion principle of Germany, as the fundamental principles to restrict administrative discretional power, have been introduced into China one after another by Chinese administrative jurists. Nevertheless, there is no consensus up to now upon whether the reasonable or proportion principle shall be the doctrine in this area. In Britain, where the reasonable principle has long been applied, has introduced the proportion principle as the reason for judicial review in cases involving human rights, and the focus is now being shifted from the former to the later. The reason for the change is that the reasonable principle, based on the principle of prohibiting acting beyond one’s authority, aims at ensuring the legality of administrative actions, and is not completely qualified for the mission of the times of protecting human rights. On the contrary, the proportion principle, on account of ensuring the legality of administrative actions, further takes the protection of human rights as its main purpose, which is much better for such protection. In the light of the task of fundamental rights protection and active judicial policies of our people’s courts, the proportion principle as the evaluating foundation severs our country better than the other in legal construction and protection of human rights. 作者： HYPERLINK /journal/a