国家赔偿：代位责任还是自己责任

国家赔偿责任,究系代位责任还是自己责任,乃学术界向有争议的问题。寻求此问题的答案,当关注代位责任说和自己责任说之间的真正分歧,当关注合理的国家赔偿制度所欲实现的四个目标,当关注特定境域中为实现这些目标而建构的国家赔偿具体制度,当关注不同学说对不同境域国家赔偿制度的解释力和逻辑自洽力。因此,代位责任说、自己责任说以及它们的理论变体,在本质上是解释论而非规范论。在具体境域中,首先需结合本境域特定条件打造合理有效的国家赔偿制度,而后才是选择与该制度相契合的学说。国家赔偿责任是代位责任还是自己责任的问题,也就不存在放之四海而皆准的答案。

On the Nature of State Compensation

Whether the state compensation liability is vicarious liability or direct liability has been a disputed issue in the academia.The exploration of this issue shall take into account the real difference between the Vicarious Liability theory and the Direct Liability theory,the four goals that a good state compensation system is to fulfill,the distinct construction of state compensation systems in specific contexts,and the different capacities of different theories to make rational and self-consistent interpretations of the state compensation systems in specific contexts.In view of this,the Vicarious Liability theory,the Direct Liability theory and their variants are essentially interpretative rather than normative theories.In a specific context,it is prerequisite to construct effective state compensation system for achieving those goals under particular conditions,and to choose a theory which is adaptive to the system is just in the wake of such construction.The issue that whether the state compensation liability is vicarious liability or direct liability therefore has no universal answer.