作者：陈天昊
作者介绍：清华大学公共管理学院助理教授ꎬ清华大学仲英青年学者
出版日期：2019年2月9日
内容提要 2015年新《行政诉讼法》生效以来,最高人民法院行政庭法官倾向于通过"行政职责"要素对行政协议的边界进行扩张解释,而最高人民法院民事庭法官则倾向于基于"行政职权"要素对其边界进行缩限解释。造成双方分歧的原因,乃根植于我国宪法中"保障公共利益"与"尊重私人权益"两者价值之间的内在张力。化解双方的分歧,需要引入"比例原则",即只有当行政职责足够重要时行政主体才可适用行政协议制度,若通过民事合同便能确保行政职责的实现,则显然不必认定行政协议;与此同时,为了避免造成司法资源的不必要浪费,民事庭法官亦需要尊重法定的"有名行政协议"之范围,为诉讼当事人提供相对确定的管辖指引。
关键词 行政协议 行政诉讼 政府特许经营协议 土地房屋征收补偿协议
Abstract: With the analysis of the revision of the Administrative Procedure Law in 2015 and of the Supreme People's Court's trial practice, the author of this article supposes that administrative law judges tend to extend the boundary of the administrative contract by the elements of administrative duty; while civil judges tend to shrink its boundary by the elements of administrative authority. The reason why these two sides split is rooted in the inherent tension of two values in Chinese Constitution, namely the tension between public interest protection and respect for private rights. Thus, to resolve the split of these two sides, for one thing, the proportion principle should be adopted. That is to say, only if administrative duty is enough important, the administrative subject can adopt the administrative contract system. But if the civil contract can indeed realize the administrative duty, obviously, it is unnecessary to be seen as an administrative contract. For another, the trial institution should respect the scope of legal " named administrative contract" so as to provide litigants with some relatively fixed jurisdiction guidance.