|
行政协议纠纷解决可适用仲裁制度的探析
|
Abstract:
行政协议在社会管理领域的广泛应用凸显出服务型政府柔性管理的特点。理论界过分重视行政协议的“行政性”而忽略其“协议性”,不利于吸引社会资本合作与纠纷的高效解决。本文立足于行政协议“行政性”与“协议性”的双重属性,基于德国双阶层理论,参考法国的实践经验,阐述行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序的理论基础。实践中行政协议纠纷呈现高增长态势,法院办案压力不容小觑;新《仲裁法》草案删除平等主体规定,为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供制度空间;仲裁程序具有专业性、高效性特点,均为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供现实正当性基础。产生行政协议纠纷时应结合争议条款的性质、产生的时间点、内容等综合判断;完全行政性质的行政协议纠纷禁止仲裁,否则允许采用仲裁程序解决争议;仲裁机构应专门设置行政争议解决人员及部门。
The wide application of administrative agreements in the field of social management highlights the characteristics of flexible management of service-oriented governments. The theoretical community attaches too much importance to the “administrative” nature of administrative agreements and ignores their “agreement”, which is not conducive to attracting social capital cooperation and efficient dispute resolution. Based on the dual attributes of “administrative” and “agreement” of administrative agreements, this paper expounds the theoretical basis for the application of arbitration procedures in administrative agreement disputes based on the two-tier theory of Germany and with reference to the practical experience of France. In practice, administrative agreement disputes have shown a high growth trend, and the pressure on courts to handle cases should not be underestimated. The new Arbitration Law deletes the provision on equal subjects to provide institutional space for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. The arbitration procedure is professional and efficient, and provides a realistic and legitimate basis for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. When a dispute arises over an administrative agreement, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the nature, time and content of the disputed clause; Arbitration is prohibited for administrative agreement disputes of a completely administrative nature, otherwise arbitration procedures are allowed to be used to resolve disputes; Arbitration institutions shall set up special administrative dispute resolution personnel and departments.
[1] | 余凌云. 行政契约论[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2021: 14. |
[2] | 壬子. 梁慧星: 中国统一合同法的起草与论证[J]. 中国律师, 1998(1): 65-68. |
[3] | 王学辉. 行政何以协议: 一个概念的检讨与澄清[J]. 求索, 2018(2): 118-128. |
[4] | [日]南博方. 行政法[M]. 第6版. 杨建顺, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2009: 81. |
[5] | 于鹏. 行政协议纠纷适用仲裁研究[J]. 清华法学, 2022, 16(5): 55-71. |
[6] | 江必新. 中国行政合同法律制度: 体系、内容及其构建[J]. 中外法学, 2012, 24(6): 1159-1175. |
[7] | 欧阳君君. 自然资源特许使用协议的性质认定——基于对双阶理论的批判性分析[J]. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, 15(4): 35-45. |
[8] | 曹书. 德国公私合作(PPP)立法模式研究[J]. 黄河科技大学学报, 2017, 19(6): 117-123. |
[9] | 尹少成. PPP协议的法律性质及其救济——以德国双阶理论为视角[J]. 政法论坛, 2019, 37(1): 85-98. |
[10] | 张莉. 谈法国行政协议纠纷解决[J]. 人民司法(应用), 2017(31): 30-34. |
[11] | 梁凤云. 行政协议的界定标准——以行政协议司法解释第1条规定为参照[J]. 行政法学研究, 2020(5): 3-12. |
[12] | 吕立秋. 行政协议的纠纷解决路径与思考[J]. 中国法律评论, 2017(1): 66-70. |
[13] | 余凌云. 论对行政契约的司法审查[J].浙江学刊, 2006(1): 139-144. |
[14] | 孙海涛, 王星月. 行政协议的救济困境与化解路径[J]. 行政与法, 2022(9): 112-119. |