| 摘要: |
| 在行政争议实质性解决的理念下，能动司法不意味着司法万能。司法实践对实质性的判断主要体现在三个维度上： 通过合理性审查消灭不确定法律状态，基于保障权益和节约资源而变通诉讼程序，进入审判外协商调解与府院合作的解纷渠道。一方面，法院将确权判决、原告撤诉、诉讼程序不重启、协商调解等可视化结果视为实质化解行政争议；另一方面，实质化解行政争议在多数裁判文书中仅作为宣誓性表达。这造成实质性的形式化，泛化实质性标准，产生司法能动与谦抑、程序与实体、尊重当事人意志与司法介入之间的价值冲突。我国司法正义观介于纯粹过程正义和结果正义之间，追求解纷效率的同时，需避免司法负担过重或肆意逸脱至审判外渠道。鉴于此，司法解决行政争议中实质性标准应受限于司法实体裁判能力，理性识别权利保护的必要性，且不可将协商调解与府院合作等同于实质性的达成。 |
| 关键词: 行政争议解决 实质性标准 过程正义 结果正义 温和的司法能动主义 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| The Clearance of Substantive Standard in Judicial Settlement of Administrative Disputes |
|
Tang Anran
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| Under the concept of substantive settlement of administrative disputes, active justice does not mean omnipotent justice. The substantive judgment of judicial practice is mainly reflected in three dimensions: eliminating the uncertain legal state through rationality examination, changing the litigation procedure based on the protection of rights and interests and saving resources, and entering the channel of resolving disputes through negotiation and mediation outside the trial and cooperation between the government and the court. On the one hand, the court regards the visual results such as judgment confirmation, withdrawal of plaintiff, non restart of litigation procedure, negotiation and mediation as the substantive settlement of administrative disputes. On the other hand, substantive settlement of administrative disputes is only a sworn expression in most judicial documents. This results in substantive formalization, generalization of substantive standards, and value conflicts between judicial activism and modesty, procedure and entity, respect for the will of parties and judicial intervention. Our view of judicial justice is between the pure procedural justice and resultant justice, and at the same time of pursuing the efficiency of dispute resolution, it is necessary to avoid the excessive judicial burden or the arbitrary escape of judicial channels. In view of this, the substantive standard in the judicial settlement of administrative disputes should be limited to the judicial entity‘s adjudication ability, rational identification of the necessity of rights protection, and consultation, mediation and cooperation between the government and the court should not be equated with substantive achievement. |
| Key words: Settlement of Administrative Disputes, Substantive Standards, Procedural Justice, Resultant Justice, Moderate Judicial Activism |
