摘要
2014年新修订的《行政诉讼法》第1条增加了“解决行政争议”,意味着行政诉讼的功能定位有了重大调整,标志着最高人民法院的司法立场转向实质性解决纠纷司法政策。与之前国家倡导的多元化纠纷解决司法政策相比,实质性解决行政纠纷是建立在查明事实、分清是非的基础之上,司法与行政处于一种良性互动机制,法院与其他主体在解决行政纠纷上具有目标的一致性。行政纠纷的多元化解决与实质性解决之间并非对立、排斥,两者共存于行政纠纷解决机制系统。多元纠纷解决机制是入口机制、形式、手段,实质性纠纷解决是出口路径、内容与目标。
Article 1 of the newly revised "Administrative Litigation Law" in 2014 added "resolving administrative disputes", which means that the functional positioning of administrative litigation has undergone a major adjustment,marking that the judicial position of the Supreme People’s Court has shifted to the judicial policy of substantive dispute resolution.. Compared with the judicial policy of diversified dispute resolution advocated by the country before, the substantive resolution of administrative disputes is based on the identification of facts and the distinction between right and wrong. The judiciary and the administration are in a benign interaction mechanism. There is consistency of goals in administrative disputes. Diversified resolution and substantive resolution of administrative disputes are not antagonistic or exclusive, and they coexist in the system of administrative dispute resolution mechanisms. The multiple dispute resolution mechanism is the entry mechanism, form and means, and the substantive dispute resolution is the exit path, content and goal.
出处
《法治研究》
CSSCI
2023年第1期42-49,共8页
Research on Rule of Law
基金
教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“行政诉讼视域下的司法批复研究”(项目编号:19YJA820025)
陕西省教育厅2020年度重点科研计划项目“信访治理与法治化研究”(项目编号:20JY063)研究成果。
关键词
行政纠纷
行政诉讼
多元化解决
实质性解决
司法政策
administrative disputes
administrative litigation
diversified resolution
substantive resolution
judicial policy
