民国时期公务员惩戒委员会体制研究
聂鑫民国时期公务员惩戒委员会体制研究
Civil Servant Disciplinary System During the Period of the Republic of China
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：聂鑫
单位：清华大学法学院
中文关键词：公务员惩戒;司法救济;委员会制;五权宪法
英文关键词：disciplinary measures against civil servant;judicial remedy;committee system;five-power constitution
中文摘要：
公务员惩戒与其权益保障是公务员管理体制中的一对矛盾。欧美各国对公务员惩戒及其救济设置了不尽相同的机关与程序。其中德国独辟蹊径,由司法机关主导惩戒程序,"寓公务员保障于惩戒之中"。近代中国的公务员惩戒体制在一定程度上取法德国,设立独立的委员会掌理公务员惩戒事宜,并且惩戒委员会日趋司法化。作为准司法机关的公务员惩戒委员会难免会与其他权力机关发生权力冲突,这一问题在五权宪法的架构下变得更为复杂。在公务员惩戒机关一元化、司法化的同时,行政、考试、监察机关也为规避公务员司法惩戒找到了出口,公务员处分在制度上与实务上仍是多权分享、多轨并行。任何改革公务员惩戒制度,将其进一步司法化、"理性化"的尝试,在理论上难免会与既有的制度背景脱节,在实务上也未见得能够奏效。
英文摘要：
Discipline and rights protection are a pair of contradiction in the civil servant management system. European countries and the United States have established different organs and procedures for the purpose of disciplining and providing relief to civil servants. For instance, the German disciplinary process is dominated by the court, which means that "rights protection and discipline are inseparable from each other". The civil servant disciplinary system in modern Chinese history had, to some extent, followed the German example by establishing a judicialized independent disciplinary council. As a quasi-judicial organ, the Civil Servant Disciplinary Council sometimes had power conflicts with other authorities and this problem was further complicated by the Council's position in the architecture of the five-power constitution. At the same time, although the Civil Servant Disciplinary Council was unified and judicialized, some other organs, such as the Executive Yuan, the Examination Yuan and the Control Yuan, had been used to evade judicial remedies. Actually, the power to discipline civil servants was shared by several different departments. Any reform aimed at judicializing and rationalizing the civil servant disciplinary system may inevitably face the risk of being divorce from the existing constitutional background and, as a result, fail to work in practice.
全文阅读： 点击下载
