关于“公共利益”的界定模式

宪法关于“公共利益”的规定,需要在国家权力运行活动中具体化。如何将“公共利益”具体化呢?学界和实务界提出了三种基本模式。第一种是人大以“一事一议”方式界定“公共利益”,第二种是由司法承担对“公共利益”的最终界定,第三种是人大以列举式立法模式将“公共利益”具体化、固置化。第一种模式正确认识到界定“公共利益”属于权力机关的权限,但具体方式却不可行;第二种司法决定模式既缺乏实质合法性,又没有技术可行性;第三种模式在立法上虽有一定困难,但也有其他国家和地区成功经验可资,是实现宪法“公共利益”规定对公民权利保护和对国家权力制约的惟一现实可行之路。要在国家权力运行上界定“公共利益”,还必须解决目前我国“公共利益”泛化掩盖下的许多具体矛盾。

Modes to Specify Public Interest

The concept of "public interest" in constitutional law needs to be specified in exercise of national authority.But how should we specify "public interest?" Altogether,three definition modes are advocated by the academic as well as professional circles:(1) "Public interest" should be interpreted by the People's Congress,case by case;(2) The judiciary has the final say of "public interest;" and(3) The National People's Congress enacts legislation to illustrate "public interest" so as to specifically define the concept.The first mode,though recognizing defining "public interest," is within the ambit of power of authoritative organs,seems unpractical.The second one is neither substantially justified nor technically feasible.The third one,though difficult to some extent,is the only way to protect citizens' rights and limitation of state power by way of exercising the constitutional provision of "public interest." The experience in other states or districts has also proved its success.However,to properly delineate "public interest" while exercising state power,many contradictions covered by the generalization of "public interest" in China should be resolved.