摘要
我国行政复议制度应该是解决行政争议之主要渠道，可是目前却没有发挥应有作用。其行政功能强于司法裁判功能，而且其独立性、中立性和权威性皆受到质疑。近几年改革呼声不绝于耳，但对该制度的定位问题却始终举棋不定。此时不妨看看英国行政裁判所制度。它作为和我国行政复议制度类似的处理行政纠纷的制度，在其历史上也曾面临性质之争。本文将分析英国的行政裁判所制度，从其通过司法化改革解决定位问题的过程中，汲取改革经验，同时也弥补国内对该制度研究的不足。
基于此，文章主体分为五个部分：
绪言部分，文章首先提出问题，即我国行政复议制度目前改革面临制度定位的困境。通过在英国的所见所闻，笔者发现英国的行政裁判所制度与该制度可比性较高。它们同为处理行政纠纷的机构，也都曾面临过行政性质或者司法性质的定位问题。纵观国内外对行政裁判所司法化的研究，发现国内对其最新发展进程并未追踪研究。是故笔者将该制度最新发展做一详细介绍，以期为我国行政复议制度的改革提供一个参考。
第一章，介绍英国行政裁判所之产生与司法化改革之过程。英国行政裁判所的产生有其特殊的历史背景。一开始是因为经济社会的发展及行政案件的专业性和技术性，政府希望通过行政裁判所这一程序简单快捷，成本低廉的方式解决纠纷。然而由行政机关设置的行政裁判所最初是行政性质，不符合英国司法独立、普通法院行使一切司法权力等法律传统而广受诟病。后来在一系列内外部因素，比如欧盟法的促进、宪政改革的推动和行政裁判所自身发展的要求下，裁判所开始了司法化改革的过程。此过程具体包括 4 个阶段，即裁判所宪法地位确认阶段、缓慢司法化阶段、司法化改革阶段和司法化完成完善阶段。
第二章，从四个方面分析行政裁判所司法性之体现。首先，裁判所组织体系重新调整，形成初级裁判所 7 个裁判庭、上级裁判所 4 个裁判庭、由女王法院和裁判所服务局管辖的 8 个裁判所并立的局势。
它们合理设置，案件管辖范围清晰，互相合理衔接，为裁判所的运行提供了保障。其次，裁判所人员任命更加独立。再次，程序规则不断制定和修订，逐渐正式化， 并增加对抗性及公平性。比如听证前的程序、委托代理人、实践指引制度、听证程序、证据规则、决定的说明理由制度、以及畅通的救济制度不断在完善。最后，各个监督管理机构通过一系列报告制度，实现对裁判所的监督，也是对其司法化成果的维护。
第三章，通过近几年裁判所相关的数据报告，分析裁判所司法化改革后取得的成果和存在的问题。裁判所取得的成就如下：它统一了英国行政司法系统，使得裁判所和法院之间实现合理衔接；同时提高其独立性和公正性；也降低了运行成本，提高了裁判所吸引力；并对其他国家产生了影响。裁判所存在的问题如下：行政裁判所程序逐渐正式化而削弱专业性，原有的廉价、快速、高效的特性在消失；裁判所培训困难；行政裁判所监管变弱等。英国裁判所未来的改革方向，即对原有成果的维护和不断改进。
结论部分，通过对裁判所司法化改革的回顾，针对我国的行政复议制度改革，本文从立法者角度提出几个建议，包括：改革需建立在充分全面调研的基础上；改革是一个不断调整的、长期的过程；改革需要一定的社会条件；有选择的借鉴英国经验；寻找实体正义和程序正义之平衡点。
关键词：行政裁判所司法化程序规则行政复议
ABSTRACT
Chinese administrative reconsideration system is considered to be theprimary mechanism for solving administrative disputes, but in practice itdoes not play its role in dispute resolution properly. Moreover, itsindependence, neutrality and authority are being called into question. As aresult, the issue of reforming the Chinese administrative reconsiderationsystem has been under debate in recent years, as well as the positioning ofadministrative reconsideration. It is a good way to learn experience fromother countries on this matter. The British administrative tribunal is similarwith Chinese administrative reconsideration system, and they allencountered the same issue of positioning their systems. This paper willanalysis how the British administrative tribunal system solved theirproblem by the judicial reform, and what can be learned from this processby Chinese government.
Against this backdrop, this paper is divided to 5 parts:
The introduction first summarizes the positioning issue faced by theChinese administrative reconsideration system. After studying in UK, theauthor found there are similarities between the British administrativetribunals system and Chinese administrative reconsideration system. Theyare all dealing with administrative disputes, and faced how to decide thenature of their institutions. The issue was ultimately resolved throughjudicial reform in UK. When it comes to the research on the judicialisationat home and abroad, the author found Chinese scholars do not keep track ofthe latest process of the judicialisation of British administrative tribunalssystem. Therefore, the author will make up the gaps in this field and try toprovide a good reference for the reform of Chinese administrativereconsideration system.
The chapter one introduces the origin of British administrativetribunals and its judicial reform process. Firstly, because of the economicand social development, and administrative cases being professional andtechnical, the British administrative tribunals are set up to resolve thesedisputes efficiently, professionally and with low cost. However, because thetribunal initially set by the executive administrative tribunals wasadministrative in nature, it was widely criticized as they went against thejudicial independence as well as the ordinary courts exercising judicialpowers in UK. As a result, the British administrative tribunals began toreform under the promotion of European Union law, constitutional reformand under the requirements of the administrative tribunals themselves.
Then it explores the four stages during this judicial reform.
The chapter two focuses on four aspects of the judicialisation of Britishadministrative tribunals system. Firstly, the tribunals are reorganized as atwo-tier system: the first tribunals and the upper tribunals which includeseveral chambers. They are reasonably set and reasonably connected toeach other, which provide a guarantee for the operation of tribunal system.
Secondly, the appointments of tribunal members are more independent.
Thirdly, the procedure rules are formulated and revised by the tribunalprocedure committee. Finally, the tribunals are overseen by the Ministry ofJustice, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and the Lord Chancellor througha reporting system.
Subsequently, the third chapter analyses the data related to the judicialreform of British administrative tribunals, including the annual totalnumber of receipts, disposals and caseload outstanding by jurisdiction, thetotal expenditure, and the timeliness from 2007 to 2015, and percentages ofappointing legal representative before tribunals, etc. After analysis of thedataabove, the author concludes the achievements as followings: the reformunified the United Kingdom administrative justice system, increased theindependence and impartiality of tribunals, reduced operating costs,improved the attractiveness of tribunals, and also had an impact on othercountries. However, because of the reform, the tribunals' specialadvantages are weakening now. For example, the formalizing of tribunalsmakes the hearing of tribunals expensive, time-consuming, and increasesthe burden of applicants, etc. Finally, the paper is followed by the trend oftribunal reform that even though some disadvantages appearing, thejudicialisation of British tribunal system will continue and makeimprovements based on the reform.
The paper is concluded by summarizing the whole process of thejudicialisation reform of British tribunal system, and provides 5suggestions for the upcoming reform of the Chinese administrativereconsideration system, including: reform should be built on the basis of afull and comprehensive investigation; reform is a long-term process ofadjustment and requires a certain social conditions; some specific UnitedKingdom experience can be applied to the reform of Chineseadministrative reconsideration system; and the Chinese government shouldlook for the balance between substantive justice and procedural justice. Inthe end, the author hope these experiences can provide references for thepositioning of Chinese administrative reconsideration system.
KEY WORDS:British administrative tribunal, judicialisation,procedure rules, administrative reconsideration system
目录
绪言
一、问题的起源
（一）我国行政复议制度改革举棋不定
（二）英国经验--行政裁判所制度的司法化
二、对行政裁判所司法化之研究
（一）国内研究现状
（二）国外研究现状
（三）研究空白处
三、本文研究思路和目的
（一）研究思路
（二）研究目的
第一章行政裁判所的产生与司法化改革
一、行政裁判所的产生（一）争议事项的专业性6
（二）福利国家的建设
（三）委任立法的增多
二、裁判所司法化的驱动因素
（一）英国特有的法律传统
（二）欧盟法的促进
（三）宪政改革的推动
（四）行政裁判所自身发展的要求
三、英国行政裁判所司法化过程
（一）司法化的标准
（二）司法化的实现过程
四、本章小结
第二章行政裁判所司法性的表现
一、裁判所组织体系重新搭建
（一）原有体系杂乱不独立
（二）现有体系有序而独立
二、独立的人员组成和任命
（一）独立的高级总裁
（二）独立的法律人员
三、程序规则的司法化
（一）程序规则概述
（二）程序规则的司法化体现
（三）救济制度更加畅通完善
四、裁判所的管理和监督
（一）管理监督机构
（二）管理监督的方式--报告制度
五、本章小结
第三章司法化的效果与评价
一、案件数量统计及归纳
（一）案件数量反应情况
（二）平均审结案件时间延长
（三）裁判所运行费用降低
（四）委托代理人数量增加
二、司法化的评价
（一）赞扬之声
（二）质疑之声
三、裁判所未来改革的方向
结论
参考文献
致谢
