行政法中一事不再罚原则的具象适用和裁量规范——基于失信惩戒体系中的类型化分析
The Concrete Application and Discretionary Regulation of the No Penalty in One Instance in Administrative Law—Based on the Typological Analysis in the Disciplinary System for Breach of Trust

一事不再罚原则在行政领域主要集中体现在行政处罚的事实处断之中，从法理概念和法条释明角度来看，新修订的《行政处罚法》第29条第1款将其进行了明确的界定，即行政主体对相对人不得以同一违法行为，作出二次以上同类(罚款类)的对应处罚。行政处罚在新的时代背景要求下，被贯之以诫勉理念强调教育违法之外的以身试法行为。从惩戒视角出发，出现了作为道德约束手段的失信惩戒相关制度，在逐步上升法律层面的引导规范的进程中，致力于发挥其指导约束作用，但其在“一事不再罚”原则的适用和裁量方面仍存有一定的质疑观点和突破探讨。孟子曾言，“诚者，天之道也；思诚者，人之道也”，我国对诚实信用的理念贯穿古今、通达各域。我们理应基于体系中的具体类型进行细致辨析，推进构建跨区域、跨行业、跨领域的信用联合惩戒管理模式，从而从根本上化解失信行为连续不断频发难题。督促依规修订联合惩戒类型化分类目录，实时更新并向社会公开，更好地推动行政性、市场性和行业性等惩戒措施多管齐下；细化法定适用情形、规范裁量基准的失信联合惩戒新格局；迈向更为具象的正当性、合法性、合理性的中国社会制度征信运行机制基本建设新征途。
In the administrative field, the principle of “no penalty in one instance” is mainly reflected in the factual punishment of administrative punishment. From the perspective of jurisprudence and in-terpretation of legal provisions, Article 29, paragraph 1, of the newly revised Administrative Penal-ty Law defines it clearly: The administrative subject shall not impose a corresponding penalty of more than two fines on the party for the same illegal act. Under the requirements of the new era, administrative punishment has been consistently used in the concept of admonition to emphasize the behavior of trying the law in addition to education violations. From the perspective of punish-ment, a related system of punishment for dishonesty has emerged in our country as a means of moral restraint, and in the process of gradually rising to the legal level of guidance and norms, the system is committed to exerting its guiding and restraining role, but it is not punishable in the principle of “no penalty in one instance”. The application and discretion of the principle still have some questioning views and need to be explored. Mencius once said, “Those who are sincere are the way of heaven; those who think of sincerity are the way of man.” Our country’s concept of honesty and credit runs through ancient and modern times and reaches all areas. We should conduct a detailed analysis based on the specific types in the system, and promote the construction of a cross-regional, cross-industry, and cross-domain credit joint punishment management model, so as to fundamentally resolve the problem of continuous and frequent untrustworthy behavior. The government should urge to revise the classified catalogue of joint disciplinary action in accordance with regulations; update it in real time and make it public, so as to better promote administrative, market, and industrial disciplinary measures in a multi-pronged manner; and refine the legal ap-plication and standardize discretion benchmark new pattern of joint punishment for dishonesty. In this way, our country can embark on a new