| Abstract: | 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。
Abstract There are two major systems of private right for dispute solution. One is a procedure system, which is a traditional type; the other is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is a type outside of judicial proceedings. 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 have chosen administrative mediation (AM) as the topic of investigation, the major reasons being that most instances of AM are administrative ADRs, and that it is the most important ADR. The major issues in this study are as follows: In a modern democratic nation, we must observe the separation of administrative and judicial branches of government, and so an AM can not aggrieve judicial authority. An AM is merely a kind of legal right, and not a constitutional right; it derives from the legislative right to form a system. Therefore the result stemming from such an AM must be subjected to an administrative review process to keep it from aggrieving people’s right of action. An AM is a discretionary mediation indeed, and therefore it might be 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 governing an AM in law. If a contract is made by the agreement of two parties, the legal theory is founded on “the freedom of contract” principle between the two parties. An 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 supporting it is founded on the “administrative guidance” principle between the mediator and the parties. The third occurs when an AM matches the characteristics of administrative guidance and its constituent elements: 1. An AM is an act by an administrative agency. 2. An AM falls within the range of a mediator’s authority. 3. An AM is essentially an administrative non-authoritative act. 4. An AM has its own specific administrative purpose. 5. An AM focuses on its own specific person. An AM, however, must have its own source of law, and a contract must have 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 disputes involving private rights, 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. |
