摘要
既得权观念与请求权观念是行政法学界与实务界存在的两种对立权利观念。权利观念的不同会导致行政诉讼原告资格、行政法上违法性认定、旧法存续与国家补偿、行政相对人与第三人关系等具体法律适用上的差异。这一差异虽可通过因果关系的操作达到一定程度的等价性,但既得权观念归根结底是宪法基本权利的前身,应被基本权利教义学替代。行政法请求权的本质是基本权利,但基本权利已由下位法具体形塑,无法直接适用。行政法权利首先应当从行政法律规范本身导出,其次才是基本权利冲突的立法合宪性问题。当描述依法行政就是保护权利的场景时指的是不侵犯行政法请求权,当描述行政法乃至行政行为依法减损权利的场景时指的是对基本权利的限制。
The concept of vested rights and the concept of claim rights are two opposing rights concepts that exist in the field of administrative law and practice.The different concepts of rights can lead to differences in the specific legal application of administrative litigation plaintiff qualifications,determination of illegality in administrative law,the existence of old laws and national compensation,and the relationship between administrative counterparties and third parties.Although this difference can achieve a certain degree of equivalence through the operation of causality,the concept of vested rights is ultimately the precursor of constitutional fundamental rights and should be replaced by the doctrine of fundamental rights.The essence of the right to request administrative law is fundamental rights,but fundamental rights have been specifically shaped by subordinate laws and cannot be directly applied.Administrative law rights should first be derived from the administrative legal norms themselves,followed by the issue of legislative constitutionality of fundamental rights conflicts.When describing the scene where administering according to law means protecting rights,it refers to not infringing on the right to request administrative law.When describing the scene where administrative law and even administrative actions derogate from rights in accordance with the law,it refers to limiting fundamental rights.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第3期162-181,共20页
China Legal Science
作者简介
黄宇骁,上海交通大学凯原法学院助理教授,法学博士。
