| 關 鍵 詞： |
規範契約；規範制定契約；法源；引介規範；民主正當性；動態轉介；私人規範；標準化契約 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文旨在探究法規範、法適用與行政契約間之關聯性，嘗試在國家與社會功能性區分的基礎下，建構法令制定與法律適用活動中，契約作為形式選擇的緣由與可行性。為此釐清規範與契約間關聯性與可能類型、判定法律性質、澄清合憲性與合法性要件。本文先從規範契約與規範制定契約二組相似概念，分別探討法令制定之形式與契約內容之界限。前者乃論析法令制定程序中契約形式的可行性、法制定之本質與正當規範制定程序之涵義。後者回答行政契約得否作為法源生成方式之疑問。
其次從行政判斷活動出發，探析私人規範在法律解釋中所扮演的角色。繼「判斷授權」理論提出後，因行政法各論發展與行政專業性影響，又發展出「標準化授權」之立法意旨。此際若行政機關援引私人規範作為判斷準據時，充實標準內涵時，構成規範繼受之特殊現象。為提高民主正當性水準、保護第三人與公共利益。應解釋契約締結並非自我目的，而須受正當締約程序之控制，方能合法承認法外規範，有效調控私人規範之繼受過程，對於受規範者之信服亦有莫大助益。
綜合上述作成三項結論：從法源理論體系的構成與合作形態的社會控制，說明行政契約能否作為法源構成形式、是否宜稱作法令制定之特殊形式，和調控適用機關援引行為之意義。社會法上規範契約為特殊性質之法令制定程序；規範制定契約若能確保利益權衡完整下，法令裁量權方為合法行使。標準化契約須符合正當契約程序之要求，始能充實法律上公認標準之內涵。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Normenvertrag；Normensetzungsvertrag；Rechtslehrequellen（sources of law）；dynamische Verweisung （consequential referral）；standardization agreement |
| 英文摘要： |
This paper examines the relations between legal guidelines, legal application, and administrative agreements, and on the foundation of national and societal function, attempting to construct the causes and possibilities of contracts serving as a formal choice in cases of ordinance-making and legal application. To this end the paper clarifies the relation between and possible types of standards and contracts and the imperatives in judging legal quality and discussing constitutionality and legality. This paper first investigates the boundaries between the form of ordinance-making and contracts’ content for the two similar concepts of standard contracts and rulemaking contracts. The first discusses and analyzes the feasibility of contractual forms in the process of ordinance-making, the essence of lawmaking, and the implications of proper rulemaking procedures. The second answers the question of whether or not administrative contracts can be a means of creating sources of law.
Next the paper investigates the role private rules play in legal interpretation from the standpoint of administrative judgment activities. Following the proposal of the “Margin of Appreciation” theory, due to the development of various theories in administrative law and the influence of professional administration, the paper next develops the legislative idea of “Margin of Standard.” At this point, it is like administrative bodies invoking private rules as judgmental criteria, expanding standards content, creating the distinct phenomenon of rule adoption. In order to improve the democratic legitimacy of contracts and to protect the interests of third parties and the public, it concludes that contracts are not for personal purpose. Only by means of the controlling proper agreement-making procedures can we legally recognize extralegal rules, and effectively regulate and control the process of private rules adoption, which also enjoys enormous benefits of convincing the one being ruled.
The paper has three conclusions: first, starting with the theoretical system of sources of law and social controls of the forms of cooperation, the paper explains whether or not administrative contracts can construct any forms as the sources, if they are suitable for the unique forms of lawmaking, and having the significance of regulating administrative bodies’ behavior. In the area of social law, only if standard contracts come along with the rulemaking procedure for special qualities and only if standardization agreements can ensure the balancing of interests, discretionary power will be legally permissible. Standardization agreements must comply with the requirements of proper contractual procedures if they are to be able to expand the contents of generally recognized standards.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、問題意識與研究方法
一、前提：二種正當性的區辨與聯結
二、規範與契約之關聯性
三、契約作為規範繼受之方式
貳、法令制定權與制定形式
一、規範制定之締約形式
二、命令制定權之單方性
三、裁量權之自主性
參、私人規範與行政判斷權
一、私人規範之引用
二、引用私人規範之疑義
三、正當締約程序作為正當標準授權程序
肆、從法源看規範與契約之關係
一、法生成源與契約形式
二、法認識源與標準化契約
伍、合作形式的社會控制
一、標準化契約：私法自治與國家適用命令之聯立
二、規範契約對於我國制度之啟示
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|