论行政诉讼的法官释明权-宪法学与行政法学专业论文.docxVIP

硕 士 学 位 论 文 论行政诉讼的 法 官释明权 Judicial Clarifications in Administrative Procedure 作 者 姓 名： 潘 瑜 指 导 教 师： 王 学 辉 教 授 西 南 政 法 大 学 Southwest University of Political Science and Law 1 1 内容摘要 法官释明权在平衡当事人诉讼能力，促进法官与当事人交流与沟通，保障诉讼有序 运行等诸多方面发挥重要的功能。然在我国，由于现行行政诉讼的实在法对法官释明权 的规定上存在内容设置笼统化，行使方式机械化、法律后果规制的缺失等弊病，这使得 司法实践中法官在对有关规定的理解和执行难免存系偏差，甚至错误。在此情境下，为 使行政诉讼法官释明权制度功用在应然层面真正展示出来，补缺诉讼过程中处于相对弱 势的原告诉讼能力，恢复双方当事人实质平等的诉讼权利，势必应对现有制度语境下的 法官释明权进行改造。通过转捩当下职权主义的行政诉讼模式，吸纳当事人主义和职权 主义的有益成分，使两者互为补足，相得益彰，型塑兼具“职权——当事人主义”行政 审判模式。反观具体制度安排，经由法官释明权行使范围中主体资格、举证责任等的扩 展、进一步完善法律后果规则和行使限度等内容的设定，锻造逻辑上自足的法官释明权 的制度架构。依凭法官职业伦理的素养的提升，使法官释明权运作核心的法官的基石最 终得以奠定。 关键词：法官释明权；诉讼模式；制度安排；法官职业伦理 1 1 Abstract The judicial clarification plays an indispensable role in balancing the parties’ procedural capabilities, promoting the communications between the parties and courts, ensuring that the procedure running smoothly. However, there are some problems of the judicial clarification existing in the regulations of Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The contents of judicial clarification are regulated vaguely. The exercise styles of judicial clarification are simplified. The legal consequences of judicial clarification are lacking. All the problems lead the judges to biases or making mistakes in comprehensive and execution the regulations during juridical practices. Under such circumstances, we should reform the contents of judicial clarification. Only in this way, the judicial clarification’s functions which include supplying a deficiency on the plaintiff’s procedural capacity and achieving the real equalities in parties’ procedural capacities can be fulfilled. We can set up the Official-Adversary System of administrative trial mode. The mode draws the advantages from Official System and Adversary System. Concrete measures in the range of judicial clarification are as follows: extend the capacity as a subject and the burden of proof; consummate the regulations of legal consequences; stipulate th