限制裁量权概念的法律原则和问题

Young Moo Lee
{"title":"限制裁量权概念的法律原则和问题","authors":"Young Moo Lee","doi":"10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.4.153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Control over the acts of discretion is one of the long-standing challenges faced by the administrative law community. Control over the acts of discretion begins with the distinction between binding acts and acts of discretion. However, the relevant precedents are aggravating the difficulty of control over the acts of discretion by recognizing the concept of restricted discretion as a third area that is neither binding acts nor acts of discretion. According to the theory of precedents, acts of restricted discretion are binding acts in principle, but in exceptional cases, they refer to acts that can refuse approval or acceptance of reports when there is a need for important public interests. However, the ‘need for important public interests’ referred to in restricted discretion corresponds to a representative amorphous concept. However, precedents understand the interpretation and application of amorphous concepts as a matter of discretion. Then, it is logical to understand restricted discretion as acts of discretion in principle. Nevertheless, the precedents commit a contradiction in viewing restricted discretion as binding acts. In addition, the concept of restricted discretion causes numerous contradictions and incongruities with existing administrative law theories, such as violation of the principle of statutory reservation, avoidance of the obligation to set disposition standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, deformation of the judgment under circumstances, and contradictions with the withdrawal system and reporting system. In light of the above, the concept of restricted discretion should be abolished in accordance with principle of the rule of law. Restricted discretion should be considered to be established only when individual laws expressly stipulate that refusal disposition can be made due to the need for important public interests. In addition, it is reasonable to say that at the moment such a regulation is made in an individual law, the relevant acts already fall under acts of discretion in terms of the intent and purpose of the regulation.","PeriodicalId":288398,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","volume":"157 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion\",\"authors\":\"Young Moo Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.4.153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Control over the acts of discretion is one of the long-standing challenges faced by the administrative law community. Control over the acts of discretion begins with the distinction between binding acts and acts of discretion. However, the relevant precedents are aggravating the difficulty of control over the acts of discretion by recognizing the concept of restricted discretion as a third area that is neither binding acts nor acts of discretion. According to the theory of precedents, acts of restricted discretion are binding acts in principle, but in exceptional cases, they refer to acts that can refuse approval or acceptance of reports when there is a need for important public interests. However, the ‘need for important public interests’ referred to in restricted discretion corresponds to a representative amorphous concept. However, precedents understand the interpretation and application of amorphous concepts as a matter of discretion. Then, it is logical to understand restricted discretion as acts of discretion in principle. Nevertheless, the precedents commit a contradiction in viewing restricted discretion as binding acts. In addition, the concept of restricted discretion causes numerous contradictions and incongruities with existing administrative law theories, such as violation of the principle of statutory reservation, avoidance of the obligation to set disposition standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, deformation of the judgment under circumstances, and contradictions with the withdrawal system and reporting system. In light of the above, the concept of restricted discretion should be abolished in accordance with principle of the rule of law. Restricted discretion should be considered to be established only when individual laws expressly stipulate that refusal disposition can be made due to the need for important public interests. In addition, it is reasonable to say that at the moment such a regulation is made in an individual law, the relevant acts already fall under acts of discretion in terms of the intent and purpose of the regulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":288398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"volume\":\"157 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.4.153\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.4.153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对自由裁量行为的控制是行政法界长期面临的挑战之一。对自由裁量行为的控制首先要区分约束行为和自由裁量行为。然而,相关判例将限制裁量权的概念确认为既非约束行为也非裁量行为的第三个领域,从而加剧了对裁量行为控制的难度。根据判例理论,限制裁量权行为原则上是具有约束力的行为,但在特殊情况下,是指在有重大公共利益需要时,可以拒绝批准或接受报告的行为。 然而,限制裁量权中所指的 "重要公共利益的需要 "对应的是一个具有代表性的模糊概念。然而,先例将无定形概念的解释和应用理解为自由裁量权的问题。因此,将限制性裁量权理解为原则上的裁量权行为是合乎逻辑的。然而,先例将限制性裁量权视为具有约束力的行为是自相矛盾的。此外,限制裁量权的概念与现有行政法理论存在诸多矛盾和不协调之处,如违反法定保留原则、规避行政诉讼法规定的设定处置标准的义务、情势判决的变形、与撤回制度和报告制度的矛盾等。 有鉴于此,根据法治原则,应废除限制裁量权的概念。只有当个别法律明确规定因重大公共利益的需要可以作出拒绝处理时,才应认定限制裁量权成立。此外,有理由说,在单行法作出这样的规定时,从规定的意图和目的来看,相关行为已经属于自由裁量行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion
Control over the acts of discretion is one of the long-standing challenges faced by the administrative law community. Control over the acts of discretion begins with the distinction between binding acts and acts of discretion. However, the relevant precedents are aggravating the difficulty of control over the acts of discretion by recognizing the concept of restricted discretion as a third area that is neither binding acts nor acts of discretion. According to the theory of precedents, acts of restricted discretion are binding acts in principle, but in exceptional cases, they refer to acts that can refuse approval or acceptance of reports when there is a need for important public interests. However, the ‘need for important public interests’ referred to in restricted discretion corresponds to a representative amorphous concept. However, precedents understand the interpretation and application of amorphous concepts as a matter of discretion. Then, it is logical to understand restricted discretion as acts of discretion in principle. Nevertheless, the precedents commit a contradiction in viewing restricted discretion as binding acts. In addition, the concept of restricted discretion causes numerous contradictions and incongruities with existing administrative law theories, such as violation of the principle of statutory reservation, avoidance of the obligation to set disposition standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, deformation of the judgment under circumstances, and contradictions with the withdrawal system and reporting system. In light of the above, the concept of restricted discretion should be abolished in accordance with principle of the rule of law. Restricted discretion should be considered to be established only when individual laws expressly stipulate that refusal disposition can be made due to the need for important public interests. In addition, it is reasonable to say that at the moment such a regulation is made in an individual law, the relevant acts already fall under acts of discretion in terms of the intent and purpose of the regulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信