论文部分内容阅读
在我国行政法学中,对于行政解释的研究并不多见,有限的一些研究,多数都具有非常强的理论性和抽象性,但对实践的关注却不够深入。应该说,一些研究者注意从理论的层面来分析行政解释的概念和特征,并对实践中的问题提出批判和改进的意见,这种积极的态度是值得肯定的,但是很多研究者仅仅重视理论,却忽视了行政解释方法和解释规范在实践中的状态。即使有些研究者注意到了行政解释在实践中的问题,也没有对行政解释在实定法中的地位和在审判实践中的效力状态进行系统的研究。行政解释的内部存在着以是否制定主体来区分的两种不同效力的解释类型,相对而言,制定主体对自己制定的法律文件的解释属于制定解释,其效力更高;反之则属于应用解释甚至无权解释,其效力低于制定解释。而根据我国既有的法律渊源的层级,可以进一步将相对应的各种行政解释归入相应的层级中进行进一步的细分,并最终列出各种主体对于各种解释对象所做的行政解释的详细效力层级。
In China’s administrative jurisprudence, there are few studies on administrative interpretation. Most of the limited researches have very strong theoretical and abstract features, but their concerns about practice are not deep enough. It should be said that some researchers pay attention to analyzing the concept and characteristics of administrative interpretation from the theoretical level and criticizing and improving their opinions on practical issues. This positive attitude is worthy of recognition. However, many researchers only attach importance to the theory , But ignored the method of administrative interpretation and explain the state of practice in practice. Even though some researchers noticed the practical problems of administrative interpretation, they did not conduct a systematic research on the status of administrative explanation in the actual law and the state of validity in trial practice. There are two types of explanation for the different legal validity of the legal documents formulated by the main body of the administrative interpretation, which is more effective than the other two types of explanation. No right to explain, its effectiveness is lower than making an explanation. According to the level of the existing sources of law in our country, the corresponding administrative explanations can be further divided into corresponding levels for further subdivision, and finally the administrative explanations made by various subjects for various objects of interpretation The detailed level of effectiveness.