Advanced search
FU Hui. The Reasonable Limit in the Exercise of Petition Right to Governmental Administrations in the New Era: The Reverse Thinking for the Protection of the Petition Right[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Science), 2018, 17(1): 79-85. DOI: 10.13931/j.cnki.bjfuss.2018013
Citation: FU Hui. The Reasonable Limit in the Exercise of Petition Right to Governmental Administrations in the New Era: The Reverse Thinking for the Protection of the Petition Right[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Science), 2018, 17(1): 79-85. DOI: 10.13931/j.cnki.bjfuss.2018013

The Reasonable Limit in the Exercise of Petition Right to Governmental Administrations in the New Era: The Reverse Thinking for the Protection of the Petition Right

More Information
  • Received Date: January 19, 2018
  • Published Date: February 28, 2018
  • "Protecting the litigant's right" is one of the basic links and core propositions in the judicial reform. In the practice of petition right to governmental administrations there are mainly two positive propulsion ideas of "problem oriented" and "concept implemented", but blindly positive propulsion must result in the increase of the potential risk of overcorrecting. It is a new idea to explore the reasonable (minimum) limit in the practice of petition right to governmental administrations from the reverse aspect. The exercise limit of petition right to governmental administrations is using the theory of object limitation and the theory of right limit as the source of legitimacy, and takes the finiteness of judicial resources, the limitation of judicial settlement in administrative disputes and the modesty of judicature as the considerations. In the absence of petition right level theory at present, the reasonable limit in the exercise of the petition right should be based on the rules as such, the current prosecution way and the prosecution conditions should prevail, reasonable parties' statements should be as the limit, and court' s alignment and verification should be as the degree. Regarding the risk prevention and control of abuse in petition right to governmental administrations, it should be conducted by involved parties to sign an agreement.
  • [1]
    顾培东.社会冲突与诉讼机制[M].北京:法律出版社, 2016: 42-43.
    [2]
    蒋秋明.诉权的法治意义[J].学海, 2003(5):114-120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9790.2003.05.023
    [3]
    刘阳.立案监督:助力化解行政诉讼"告状难"[J].人民检察, 2011(12):142-144. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-RMJC201112047.htm
    [4]
    信春鹰.关于《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法修正案(草案)》的说明[M].北京:法律出版社, 2014:312-313, 132-133, 125-131, 311-319.
    [5]
    姜明安.论新《行政诉讼法》的若干制度创新[J].行政法学研究, 2015(4):12-21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0078.2015.04.002
    [6]
    吴英姿.论诉权的人权属性——以历史演进为视角[J].中国社会科学, 2015(6):112-130. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgshkx201506007
    [7]
    杨翔.落实立案登记制保障当事人诉权——湖南高院关于行政诉讼案件立案登记制实施情况的调研报告[N].人民法院报, 2015-07-02(8).
    [8]
    姜明安.行政法与行政诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 高等教育出版社, 2015:486.
    [9]
    范伟.论行政诉讼中的起诉期限延误——兼评《行政诉讼法》第48条[J].行政法学研究, 2018(1):10. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=xzfxyj201802011
    [10]
    黑格尔.小逻辑[M].贺麟, 译.上海: 上海人民出版社, 2009: 351-352.
    [11]
    张世英.黑格尔词典[M].长春:吉林人民出版社, 1991:517, 519.
    [12]
    李海青.论权利的限度[J].哲学研究, 2013(11):103-106. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zxyj201311017
    [13]
    黄俊辉.论相对性是权利的基本特征[J].社科纵横, 2008 (10):142-143. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9106.2008.10.054
    [14]
    休谟.人性论[M].关文运, 译.北京: 商务印书馆, 1980: 536.
    [15]
    张文显.法理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 高等教育出版社, 2011:93-95.
    [16]
    刘作翔.权利相对性理论及其争论——以法国若斯兰的"权利滥用"理论为依据[J].清华法学, 2013(6):110-121. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9280.2013.06.008
    [17]
    徐显明.论权利[J].文史哲, 1990(6):18-25.
    [18]
    林莉红.行政诉讼法学[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社, 2015:37-38, 158.
    [19]
    何海波.行政诉讼法[M].北京:法律出版社, 2016:107-108.
    [20]
    樊宝平.资源稀缺性是一条普遍法则[J].经济问题, 2004 (7):8-10. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=10196999
    [21]
    朱克曼.危机中的民事司法[M].傅郁林, 译.北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2005: 123-131.
    [22]
    黄先雄.司法谦抑论——以美国司法审查为对象[M].北京:法律出版社, 2008:18-35.
    [23]
    张浪.论司法审查中谦抑与能动的共治[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社科版), 2012(5):79-86. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=szdxxb-zxshkxb201205012
    [24]
    黄先雄.从美国司法审查看行政案件中的司法谦抑[J].求索, 2007(3):83-85. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=qiusou200703030
    [25]
    新堂幸司.新民事诉讼法[M].林剑锋, 译.北京: 法律出版社, 1998: 171.
    [26]
    王春业.新行政诉讼法修改评析[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2015:128-129.
    [27]
    张卫平.起诉条件与实体判决要件[J].法学研究, 2014(6): 58-68. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=fxyj200406022
    [28]
    中村英郎.新民事诉讼法讲义[M].陈刚, 译.北京: 法律出版社, 2001: 152.
    [29]
    梁君瑜.行政诉讼立案登记制的模式选择及其正当性[J].上海政法学院学报(法治论坛), 2016(6):100-107. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-ZFKL201606014.htm
    [30]
    江伟. 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》修改稿(第3稿)及立法理由[M].北京:人民法院出版社, 2005:240.
    [31]
    王春业.论行政诉讼立案登记制度——兼评新行政诉讼法相关条款[J].北京社会科学, 2015(11):80-88. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=bjshkx201511010
    [32]
    江必新, 梁风云.最高人民法院新行政诉讼法司法解释理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2015:6-8.
    [33]
    王学辉, 胡雪瑾.论中国法治建设的过渡期[J].学术界, 2017 (8):76-89, 323. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1698.2017.08.007
    [34]
    梁君瑜.我国行政诉讼立案登记制的实质意涵与应然面向[J].行政法学研究, 2016(6):83-94. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=xzfxyj201606007
    [35]
    张文显.习近平法治思想研究(下)——习近平全面依法治国的核心观点[J].法制与社会发展, 2016(4):5-47. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=fzyshfz201604002
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(0)

    Other cited types(3)

Catalog

    Article views (856) PDF downloads (14) Cited by(3)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return