规范性文件附带审查制度的实效困境及化解路径  

The Effectiveness Dilemma of Incidental Review of Regulatory Documents and the Way Out

作　　者：于洋 Yu Yang

机构地区：[1]上海财经大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2024年第1期92-108,共17页Global Law Review

基　　金：2021年度国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“规范性文件附带审查制度研究”(21FFXB018)的研究成果。

摘　　要：规范性文件附带审查制度在司法实践中呈现启动率低、违法认定率低的运行样态,法官倾向采用不予审查、形式审查阻却实质审查、诉诸法外因素替代合法性审查等行为模式回避附带审查规范性文件,引发这一制度的实效困境。规范性文件附带审查模式的制度局限,为法官的回避审查行为提供了空间。法院的科层化管理体制产生反向激励,催生法官为提升审判效率、避免风险而回避审查的行为。而法院所处的场域,促使法官考量法外因素,加剧了回避审查行为。为化解实效困境,首先应遵循规范主义裁判思维调整法官的裁判行为,通过方法论自觉提升法官的附带审查能力;其次应继续推进司法管理体制改革,明确审判责任体系,通过激励机制激发法官附带审查的动力;最后应改善法官审判环境,党政机关应当支持法院参与国家治理的方式,行政机关须通过行政自制与附带审查制度相衔接,并借助有权机关的高位推动,共同推进规范性文件附带审查制度的落实。The system of incidental review of regulatory documents refers to the system whereby citizens,legal persons or other organizations may incidentally request a review of the regulatory documents on which an administrative act is based when instituting litigation against the administrative act.In judicial practice,this system is characterized by a low rate of initia-tion and a low rate of violation determination.Judges tend to adopt a particular way to evade in-cidental review of regulatory documents,thereby leading to the effectiveness dilemma.The di-lemma can be analyzed at two levels:the regulatory level and the factual level.Firstly,the in-cidental review model has institutional limitations in that it is not an independent litigation,but only a litigation request.The judge's refusal to review or his review with erroneous results will not lead to a negative evaluation,thus providing the possibility for the judge's evasion of relat-ed responsibilities.Secondly,the sectionalized management system of courts produces reverse incentives for judges to evade review for the purposes of enhancing trial efficiency and avoiding potential risks.Thirdly,the complex power field formed by the policy implementation function of the courts and the dominant position of executive authorities has prompted judges to consider the political and social effects of judgments and other extralegal factors,thus exacerbating their review-evading conduct.There are several approaches to getting out the dilemma.Firstly,ad-justing judges'adjudication conduct by following the normative adjudication thinking so that they can consciously avoid through methodology the rigid application of law that leads to formal review.Secondly,continuously promoting the reform of the judicial management system,break-ing down the institutional barriers that constrain judges'adjudication,clarifying the system of judges'responsibilities centered on the"responsibility for adjudication",and establishing an incentive mechanism for encouraging judges to conduct incidental

关 键 词：规范性文件 附带审查 法官行为 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]