行政处罚之惩罚性的界定  

Defining the Punitivenessof Administrative Punishment

作　　者：邹奕[1] ZOU Yi(Law School of Sichuan University,Chengdu 610207)

机构地区：[1]四川大学法学院,四川成都610207

出　　处：《行政法学研究》2022年第2期44-55,共12页ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW

基　　金：四川省科学技术厅软科学研究课题“四川省区县综合行政执法体制改革内容与路径研究”(项目编号:2020JDR0044)。

摘　　要：行政处罚的关键特征体现为惩罚性,惩罚性是区分行政处罚与其他行政措施的实质标准。“惩罚”的本质是报应,相对于“制裁”“惩戒”这两个类似概念具有更加单纯的语义。就厘定行政处罚的范围而言,与倚赖行政法律规范的形式标准进路和追求特定价值目标的目标导向进路相比较,基于惩罚性的实质标准进路具有相对优势,应予坚持。依据惩罚性的一般逻辑,行政处罚应当具有惩处违法的基本目的,它并非补救实际损害或者防范现实风险的必要手段;行政处罚应当具有单方实现的具体内容,它是实力行为而非单纯的命令;行政处罚应当具有克减权益的直接效果,它所克减的利益包括非法利润和预期利益,但纯粹的精神利益不在此限。As a critical feature of administrative punishment,punitiveness is a substantive standard to distinguish between administrative punishment and other administrative measures.The punishment is retribution in its nature and it has purer semantic meaning than similar concepts such as“sanction”and“punitive warning.”As for determining the scope of administrative punishment,compared with the formal standard approach that relies on administrative legal norms and the goal orientation approach that leads to some worthy goal,the substantive standard approach based on punitiveness has comparative advantages so it should be insisted.According to the general logic of punitiveness,administrative punishment has the fundamental purpose to punish administrative illegal actions and is not a necessary measure to remedy actual damages or prevent real risks;it has specific matters that are unilaterally implementable and is not just an executive command;it should have a direct effect to limit rights and interests,including illegal profits and expected benefits but excluding pure spiritual interests.

关 键 词：行政处罚 惩罚性 报应论 预防论 行政违法 

分 类 号：D922.11[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]