不履行法定职责行政案件司法审查强度之检讨

我国法院在不履行法定职责行政案件的司法审查强度方面存在差异，具体体现为“是否存在法定职责”“履行法定职责是否可能”以及“是否实质履行了法定职责”这三个审判基准上的不一致。这反映出我国理论上存在秩序性审查模式与合目的性审查模式两种理想类型。从国外的司法实践中看，英、美、法、德四国对不履行法定职责行政案件的司法审查都具有合目的性司法审查模式的制度装置。鉴于我国目前已经基本具备了将不履行法定职责行政案件的合目的性审查模式引入制度的条件，下一步在合目的性司法审查模式的完善上应立足于司法审查标准的细化、区分合理性与专业性审查、完善不同层次的义务来源体系、考量对基本人权的侵犯程度以及进行必要的理论借鉴。     

个人信息处理中比例原则审查基准体系的建构

随着《个人信息保护法》从立法论转向适用论，如何具体适用个人信息处理的“合法、正当、必要、不得过度”原则，是规范适用者不得不面对的现实问题。通过在个人信息处理中构建类型化的比例原则审查基准体系，对于具体的信息处理行为进行检验，可以划定合比例限制个人信息权益的界限，促使适用机关合理且一贯地适用个人信息处理原则。在目的正当性审查基准构建中，基于不同信息处理依据，通过粗疏过滤的方式，确定信息处理的积极或消极审查基准；在必要性审查基准构建中，基于风险评估结果与目的—手段关联程度，划分信息权益限制的“相对最小”“接近最小”“绝对最小”三重审查基准；在均衡性审查基准构建中，基于个案中不同处理情形所产生的“损”与“益”，区分宽松、严格不同层次的合比例性审查基准。通过个人信息处理中比例原则审查基准体系构建，增加处理原则的适用理性，提高审查结果预测可能性，以期实现个人信息所承载多方利益的平衡保护。     

司法审查与维护宪法权威

在解决立法冲突和认定法律、法规的有效或无效方面,我国采用的是上级立法机关审查和行政审查,而不是司法审查。这种审查机制的问题在于以下两个方面:第一,由制定法律的机关进行审查,下级立法是否无效上级立法机关说了算,缺乏监督;第二,审查的标准通常是自己制定的法律或立法机关自己确立的标准,不能维护宪法的权威。我国应确立以宪法为最高标准的法律审查制度,并且,不能由制定法律的机关进行审查;否则,无法保证审查的客观性和公正性。     

法律案合宪性审查的程序、事项与方法

法律案的合宪性审查是立法机关在立法过程中对法律案是否符合宪法进行的自我、事前控制形式,是我国合宪性审查机制的重要组成部分。在不存在根本性制度障碍的前提下,先行激活法律案的合宪性审查对于提升宪法实施和宪法监督水平,维护宪法的权威性具有非常重要的实践意义。《立法法》设定的审议程序(包括“前置性”审议程序与正式审议程序)蕴含着对法律案进行合宪性审查的契机。立法机关可以根据我国宪法在内容构造上的特点,立足于本国立法的现实需要并借鉴其他国家的合宪性审查经验,将合宪性审查的对象锁定在法律草案在内容上最有可能涉及违宪的某些具体事项上,如此才能提高审查效率;针对较为具体的审查事项,立法机关需要创造性运用“抽象公益条款的禁止”“平等原则的过滤”以及“比例原则的审视”等方法,有效地排除法律草案中的违宪情形,稳健地推进与我国国情相适应的合宪性审查工作。     

简论完善我国的违宪审查制度

违宪审查是宪法实施的重要内容,一般认为有以下四种模式:司法机关审查模式、立法机关审查模式、专门机关审查模式、复合审查模式,我国采取的是立法机关审查模式。本文认为完善我国的违宪审查制度应该从健全违宪审查机构和健全违宪审查程序两方面入手。     

论违宪审查权与立法权的分离——中国违宪审查权的困境与出路之思考

违宪审查权本质上是一种高于或独立于立法权的权力,它的主要功能是监督立法和实现宪政.违宪审查权有三种模式,即由最高司法机关行使违宪审查权的模式、由专门机关行使违宪审查权的模式和由国家最高权力机关兼立法机关行使违宪审查权的模式.违宪审查权与立法权相分离的前提是宪法与法律的分离.违宪审查权与立法权相分离,并由不同的权力机关来行使,具有重要的宪政意义.中国违宪审查权面临着立法机关自己审查自己的困境,改革的出路应该遵循违宪审查权与立法权相分离的路径,建立有中国特色的违宪审查制度.     

实质解决行政争议视角下的行政履行判决适用研究

行政履行判决作为我国法定的判决形式,目的在于督促行政机关依法履职。由于履行判决司法适用中存在程序空转和诉权保障不足等现象,履行判决实质解决行政争议效果不明显。文章结合域外经验和我国审判实践,从履行判决的司法审查标准、司法审查强度、判决基准、内容履行程度等方面,提出实质合法性审查标准、合目的性及履责程度审查强度、裁判时机成熟及实体性裁判等适用规则,从而促进实质解决行政争议。     

合宪性审查的地方制度构图

法律法规之外的地方规范性文件是否可能直接违宪,以及其违宪问题由谁处置和如何处置的问题,构成了合宪性审查地方制度的核心关切。规范性文件备案审查体系是合宪性审查制度构成中最全面、最有效的制度实现载体。目前的地方立法对备案审查中合宪性标准的规定整体上呈现出一种谨慎的姿态。究其原因,国家立法对合宪性审查职责配置模糊、“违宪”责任观念上存在误区、合宪性审查地方实践需求不强等多重因素,严重抑制了针对地方规范性文件合宪性审查的地方立法。一直以来,理论界和实务界共筑的“地方人大宪法监督”学说却有力地支撑着合宪性审查地方工作的展开。合宪性审查的地方制度正是由以地方人大宪法监督为主导、同级“一府一委两院”自我纠错为补充的合宪性审查工作体系所构成。     

论行政诉讼中的合目的性审查

我国行政诉讼法只规定了进行合法性审查的单一审查形态,不能满足行政诉讼实践的需要。应该逐步建立由合法性审查、合理性审查和合目的性审查组成的全方位行政诉讼审查体系,才能更好地因应实践的需要。文章从探讨单一合法性审查的局限性及解决方法入手,逐步导出合目的性审查,并对其含义和审查方法等进行具体探讨。     

浅谈国外违宪审查模式及其启示

宪法作为一个国家的根本大法,在法治国家中具有至高的法律地位和法律效力。为了监督宪法的实施,保障宪法的权威,建立违宪审查制度是十分必要的。纵观当今世界各国的违宪审查制度,大致可分为普通法院审查模式、专门机关审查模式和立法机关审查模式三种。本文通过这三种模式的基本内容及其特点的系统研究与比较分析,并针对我国宪法监督现状,指出专门机关审查模式对我国构建和完善违宪审查制度更具有借鉴意义。     

我国违宪审查制度建立的主要法律障碍

为了保证宪法实施,必须建立相应的违宪审查制度,但是由于我国目前违宪审查的机构未能建立起来,宪法规范缺少可适用性,法律适用与宪法及法律的解释相分离以及宪法监督欠缺相应的启动机制。因而,我国的违宪审查制度至今未能实际建立起来。我国立法监督制度的建立与完善任重而道远。     

Revision of requirements applicable to albumin (human), plasma protein fraction (human), and immune globulin (human). Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Direct final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating specific regulations applicable to blood derivative products to be more consistent with current practices and to remove unnecessary or outdated requirements. FDA is issuing these amendments directly as a final rule because the agency believes they are noncontroversial and that there is little likelihood that there will be comments opposing the rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a proposed rule under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment in the event the agency receives any significant adverse comments. If any significant adverse comment is received sufficient to terminate the direct final rule within 30 days after the comment period ends, FDA will consider such comments on the proposed rule in developing the final rule. FDA is issuing this rule as part of the agency's "blood initiative" in which FDA is reviewing and revising, when appropriate, its regulations, policies, guidance, and procedures related to blood products, including plasma derivatives.     

论法律保留对“校规”的适用边界——从发表论文等与学位“挂钩”谈起

大学并非一国之"租界",因此,大学事务亦有法律保留原则适用之必要,但是学术自由内在要求国家法律只能是宏观性和方向性的"框架立法",进而给大学自治这一制度性保障留足创制空间。大学"校规"与国家法律的关系,根据不同的"校规"类型有着很大的差异。对"学术性规则"而言,法律设定的"国标"只是学术的"最低标准",为教育质量计,各大学的"学术性规则"可以在法律之上设定更加严格的学术条件。而对"行政性规则",法律则是不可逾越的"上限"规范,只是就我国的法治实践现实观之,应破除"国家权力单一"的神话,确立"国家—社会"二元权力构造,进而给自治团体的自我型塑留下适当的裁量余地。当然,符合"法律保留原则",仅在宪法审查之路上迈出了"形式上"的第一步,"校规"要满足合宪要件,还必须存在"实质阻却违宪事由",这又要接受"比例原则"的合理性检验。     

Revisions to the requirements applicable to blood, blood components, and source plasma. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Direct final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating specific regulations applicable to blood, blood components, and Source Plasma to be more consistent with current practices in the blood industry and to remove unnecessary or outdated requirements. FDA is issuing these amendments directly as a final rule because they are noncontroversial and there is little likelihood that FDA will receive any significant comments opposing the rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a proposed rule under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment in the event the agency receives any significant adverse comments. If FDA receives any significant adverse comment sufficient to terminate the direct final rule, FDA will consider such comments on the proposed rule in developing the final rule. FDA is issuing this rule as part of the agency's "Blood Initiative" in which FDA is reviewing and revising, when appropriate, its regulations, policies, guidance, and procedures related to blood, blood components, and Source Plasma.     

The Ubiquitous Book Review

If case-notes are considered to be a lowly form of legal literature, book reviews could come even lower. Law book-reviews, whenever themselves the subject of legal commentary, are seen to be done badly. Lacking the discipline of the legal opinion, law-book reviewing ranges between the pedantic and the perfunctory, with room for indulgence in the personal and the polemic. There are no established techniques for law-book reviewing. There are no criteria for critical appreciation. Law-book reviewing, which lacks any discernable ground-rules, proceeds intuitively without reference to explicit standards or established expertise. This is odd because the literary tradition of book-reviewing was first established by a lawyer whose concept was that of putting books on legal trial. The literary review is thus strongly grounded in legal method. The present shortcomings of the law-book review denote not only literary shortcomings but also failures of legal method. The conventional law review provides the evidence, no less than it carries much of the blame for the decline in law-book reviewing. One obvious standard of reference for the declining law-book review continues to be the higher forms of literary review. This standard calls for renewed interest in law and literature.     

Definition of primary mode of action of a combination product. Final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its combination product regulations to define "mode of action' (MOA) and "primary mode of action" (PMOA). Along with these definitions, the final rule sets forth an algorithm the agency will use to assign combination products to an agency component for regulatory oversight when the agency cannot determine with reasonable certainty which mode of action provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. Finally, the final rule will require a sponsor to base its recommendation of the agency component with primary jurisdiction for regulatory oversight of its combination product by using the PMOA definition and, if appropriate, the assignment algorithm. The final rule is intended to promote the public health by codifying the agency's criteria for the assignment of combination products in transparent, consistent, and predictable terms.     

省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查的空间和机制

省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查,对推进我国合宪性审查工作体系化具有重要作用。自地方扩容立法以来,地方立法主体"数量多、能力低"的现状、地方立法的本土化趋向和宪法变迁共同增加了地方规范性文件的违反宪性风险。而现有的规范性文件备案审查制度因其固有体系缺陷,不足以促进合宪性审查的有效实现。在实定法层面,《宪法》《立法法》等相关法律为省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查提供了制度空间;在理论层面,对地方人大监督宪法制度的学说探讨有力支撑着省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查的展开。在比较法层面,美、日、德、法等国的合宪性审查制度体系亦成为我国省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查的域外立法参考。省级人大常委会参与合宪性审查应以《立法法》第九十九条的审查要求权为核心,嵌入筛查机制进行合宪性预审,最终确立省级人大常委会的审查原则、明晰地方规范性文件的审查范围、注重与全国人大常委会的衔接协作"三位一体"的机制构建。     

补偿博弈与第三方评估

从对公共利益、公众参与、公平补偿的强调来看,《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》相比《城市房屋拆迁管理条例》进步显著。然而,引入经济学中博弈论概念工具对该征收条例的解读表明,公平补偿能否实现在很大程度上取决于评估机构。该征收条例中一些模糊的规定,以及《国有土地上房屋征收评估办法》赋予评估机构以垄断地位的制度设计,为政府和评估机构的机会主义行为留下了极大的空间。由此,构建有效的第三方评估市场,并在政府报价之后赋予被征收人以真正的自由选择评估机构的权利,是构建法治社会中和谐的征收关系的关键。     

高校校规的违宪审查问题

我国高校虽然不具有行政机关的资格 ,但法律赋予它行使一定的行政管理权 ,所以 ,我国高校校规是一种自治规章 ,属于抽象行政行为。大学生是国家的普通公民 ,享有宪法规定的权利 ,但现行司法体制在处理高校校规侵犯大学生宪法权利的行为时存在许多缺憾。为使高校管理法治化 ,高校校规必须接受违宪审查。法院在审查校规合宪性时应遵循一些原则 ,诸如法层级效力规则、校规合宪性推定规则、禁止歧视对等规则等     

Food labeling; nutrient content claims, definition of sodium levels for the term "healthy." Final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations concerning the maximum sodium levels permitted for foods that bear the implied nutrient content claim "healthy." The agency is retaining the currently effective, less restrictive, "first-tier" sodium level requirements for all food categories, including individual foods (480 milligrams (mg)) and meals and main dishes (600 mg), and is dropping the "second-tier" (more restrictive) sodium level requirements for all food categories. Based on the comments received about technological barriers to reducing sodium in processed foods and poor sales of products that meet the second-tier sodium level, the agency has determined that requiring the more restrictive sodium levels would likely inhibit the development of new "healthy" food products and risk substantially eliminating existing "healthy" products from the marketplace. After reviewing the comments and evaluating the data from various sources, FDA has become convinced that retaining the higher first-tier sodium level requirements for all food products bearing the term "healthy" will encourage the manufacture of a greater number of products that are consistent with dietary guidelines for a variety of nutrients. The agency has also revised the regulatory text of the "healthy" regulation to clarify the scope and meaning of the regulation and to reformat the nutrient content requirements for "healthy" into a more readable set of tables, consistent with the Presidential Memorandum instructing that regulations be written in plain language.