全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

环境行政处罚裁量基准的生态功能与规制发展
The Ecological Function and Regulation Development of the Discretionary Benchmark of Environmental Administrative Punishment

DOI: 10.12677/OJLS.2023.113152, PP. 1067-1073

Keywords: 环境行政处罚裁量基准,生态功能,行政自制,环境治理
Environmental Administrative Penalty Discretion Standard
, Ecological Function, Administrative Self-Control, Environmental Governance

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

中国式现代化背景下,随着裁量基准热潮的兴起,环境行政处罚裁量基准作为一种行政自制手段在我国实践中取得良好成效。虽然环境行政处罚裁量基准可以有效解决环境行政处罚自由裁量权滥用的问题,但其在实践中也不可避免地面临一些困境。现阶段,环境行政处罚裁量基准的制定主体尚未明确,制定过程中忽视了环境法基本原则的指引与适用,且缺乏监督机制。鉴于此,本文在行政法理论基础上结合生态环境治理领域内行政处罚的特殊之处,针对以上问题提出了一系列的解决措施,以促进环境行政处罚裁量基准的规范适用及发展,进而加快现代化生态文明体系建设的进程。
In the context of Chinese path to modernization, with the rise of the discretionary benchmark boom, the discretionary benchmark of environmental administrative punishment, as a means of administrative self-control, has achieved good results in China’s practice. Although the environmental administrative penalty discretion benchmark can effectively solve the problem of abuse of environmental administrative penalty discretion, it also inevitably faces some difficulties in practice. At this stage, the subject of setting the discretionary benchmark for environmental administrative punishment is not yet clear, the guidance and application of the basic principles of environmental law have been ignored in the formulation process, and there is a lack of monitoring mechanisms. In view of this, this article proposes a series of solutions to the above problems based on the theory of administrative law and the particularity of administrative penalties in the field of ecological and environmental governance, in order to promote the standardized application and development of the discretionary standards of environmental administrative penalties, and thus accelerate the process of building a modern ecological civilization system.

References

[1]  李挚萍. 以习近平生态文明思想和法治思想为指导推进环境法治发展[J]. 法治社会, 2021(2): 1-11.
[2]  史笔, 曹晟. 新《行政诉讼法》中行政行为“明显不当”的审查与判断[J]. 法律适用, 2016(8): 23-28.
[3]  章楚加, 仲新建. 环境行政处罚自由裁量权的行使应符合授权、程序等要求[J]. 人民司法, 2014(18): 78-81+1.
[4]  吴卫星, 周嘉敏. 环境行政处罚司法审查被告败诉考——基于122起环境行政处罚诉讼案件的实证分析[J]. 南京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 20(3): 16-28+109.
[5]  郭武. 论中国第二代环境法的形成和发展趋势[J]. 法商研究, 2017, 34(1): 85-95.
[6]  朱晓勤, 李天相. 环境行政处罚裁量基准的多元共治路径探析[J]. 法学杂志, 2019, 40(6): 77-85+140.
[7]  董正爱, 王璐璐. 迈向回应型环境风险法律规制的变革路径——环境治理多元规范体系的法治重构[J]. 社会科学研究, 2015(4): 95-101.
[8]  杜健荣. 行政处罚自由裁量基准设定的合理化[J]. 南都学坛, 2012, 32(1): 108-112.
[9]  章志远. 行政裁量基准的兴起与现实课题[J]. 当代法学, 2010, 24(1): 68-75.
[10]  朱晓勤, 李天相. “原则之治”下环境行政处罚裁量基准适用规则的优化[J]. 吉林大学社会科学学报, 2020, 60(2): 35-46+219.
[11]  谭冰霖. 环境行政处罚规制功能之补强[J]. 法学研究, 2018, 40(4): 151-170.
[12]  杨帆, 李传珍. “罚款”在我国环境行政处罚中的运用及绩效分析[J]. 法学杂志, 2014, 35(8): 44-53.
[13]  丁霖. 论环境行政处罚裁量的规制——以生态环境治理体系现代化为框架[J]. 浙江工商大学学报, 2020(2): 150-160.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133