政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/92164
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51773018      線上人數 : 452
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/92164


    題名: 我國行政機關ADR制度之理論探討—以行政調解制度為中心（上）
    其他題名: A Theoretical Research of Administrative ADR Systems in Taiwan—Focus on
    作者: 黃明陽
    Huang, Ming-Yang
    關鍵詞: 司法權;司法審查;行政行為;行政處分;行政指導;行政調解;行政裁決;行政程序;任意調解;事實行為;非權力行為;契約自由;契約正義;強制調解;單純事實行為;訴訟權;訴訟程序
    ADR;administrative act;administrative adjudication;administrative disposition;administrative guidance;administrative mediation (AM);administrative procedure;administrative review;civil procedure;compulsory mediation;discretionary mediation;fact-behavior;freedom of contract;judicature;justice of contract;non-authority act;pure fact-behavior;right of action
    日期: 2006-02
    上傳時間: 2016-05-05 17:26:04 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 有關私權爭議之處理，主要有訴訟機制及ADR機制兩種，訴訟機制屬於傳統類型，ADR機制則係指訴訟以外所有糾紛處理制度。二十一世紀將會有更多人利用ADR機制解決爭議，ADR機制時代已然來臨並且蓬勃發展。筆者之所以研究行政調解機制，主要理由為：在所有ADR機制中，絕大部分均屬行政機關ADR機制，其中又以行政調解機制最為重要。本文主要論點為：首先，一個現代民主國家必須注意及行政與司法之分際，行政調解不可侵犯司法權。行政調解只是一種法定權利，並非憲法上的權利，它是出於立法者制度形成之自由。因此，行政調解的結果必須配以司法審查制度，才不致侵害人民的訴訟權。行政調解為任意調解，也許可將之作為訴訟前置程序，但卻不可將之改為強制調解。其次，行政調解為三面的法律關係，因為它是由於雙方的合意，所以在當事人間法律理論是建立於「契約自由」原則之上，該契約屬於民法上的一種無名契約。因為它不是行政機關的行政處分行為，所以在行政調解機關與當事人間法律理論是建立於「行政指導」原則之上。第三，行政調解符合行政指導的特性及其構成要件：一、行政調解是行政機關的行為。二、行政調解是行政機關權限內的行為。三、行政調解是行政機關非權力行為。四、行政調解有一定之行政目的。五、行政調解係對特定對象為之。不過，行政調解必須有法源依據及成立調解具有法定效力，此則與通常的行政指導不同，故應屬一種特別的行政指導。此外，雖然我國行政程序法「有關私權爭議之行政裁決程序」不適用之除外規定，惟筆者認為行政調解非屬一種私權爭議之行政裁決程序，既然它是一種行政行為，因此當其原有行政調解特別法令規定不足之時，仍然可以補充適用我國行政程序法之規定。
    There are two major systems of private right for dispute solution. One is procedure system, which is a traditional type; the other is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR), it is a type outside of the judicial proceeding. Growing numbers of disputes will be resolved in the 2000s through ADR techniques. ADR is here and will continue to develop. Among the different forms of ADR, I chose administrative mediation (AM) as the topic of investigation, the major reasons being that most instances of AM are administrative ADRs, and it is the most important ADR. The major issues in the research, there are as follows: For a modern democracy country, we must notice observe the separation of administration and judicature, an AM can not aggrieve judicial authority at first. An AM is just a kind of legal right, and not a constitutional right, it’ is made by legislators’ freedom ofto forming a system. Therefore the resultoutcome of thean AM must be undersubjected to an administrative review process, to keep it from aggrieving people’s right of action. An AM is a discretionary mediation indeed, maybe we canit is possible to make it a rule to a pre-procedure, but we cannot make it a rule into a compulsory mediation. Second, there are three kinds of relations of an AM in law. Due to If thea contract is made by the parties’ agreement of two parties, the legal theory is founded on “the freedom of contract” principle between the two parties. TheAn AM contract is a kind of unnamed contract in civil law. Because the mediator’s act is not a kind of administrative authority act, the legal theory is founded on the “administrative guidance” principle between the mediator and the parties. Third, an AM matches the characteristics of administrative guidance and its constituent elements: an AM is an act by an administrative agency. An AM is within the range of a mediator’s authority. An AM is essentially an administrative non-authoritative act. An AM has its own specific administrative purpose. An AM focuses on its own specific person. But an AM must have its own source of law, and the contract has legal efficacy according to the law. It differs from an ordinary administrative guidance, so we can call it a kind of special administrative guidance. Otherwise, according to our Administrative Procedure Act, “an administrative adjudication for private right disputes” is not in its application of rules. I consider, however, that the process of an AM is not a kind of administrative adjudication for private right disputes, since an AM is an administrative act; consequently, when the rules of law pertaining to specific AMs are insufficient, the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act may still be applied.
    關聯: 法學評論, 89, 1-54
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    89(1-54).pdf672KbAdobe PDF2448檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋