温馨提示：该篇为博士论文部分章节，如需阅读全文，请移至本文末尾
论文创新点
第一、研究角度的创新。据笔者阅读所及，目前我国学界尚未有文章从诉讼类型化的角度来专门讨论行政诉讼起诉期限等时效规则的设计问题。本文从诉讼类型化的视角，系统地分析当前我国行政诉讼起诉期限制度在设定、适用和补救等方面存在的问题及原因。对起诉期限的概念、性质、特征和形成历史作进一步的系统归纳和梳理，特别是针对我国现行立法、司法实践以及学术研究观点普遍存在的起诉期限适用范围“无限化”、时效规则设计“一元化”惯性思维的现象，明确地提出起诉期限适用范围“有限化”、行政诉讼时效规则设计“多元化”的主张，并对这种观点的法理依据予以充分的论证。
第二、研究内容的创新。首先，关于我国行政诉讼时效制度的设置问题，针对当前学界普遍“矫枉过正”地主张将最能体现行政诉讼特色的时效规则——起诉期限——完全改造成为类似民事诉讼时效的时效规则这种研究观点和现状，本文主张并论证我国行政诉讼应当保留而不应抛弃现有的起诉期限规则，并且应当对起诉期限的设定和适用范围进行“有限化”改造。其次，当前学界对于教示义务这一既能够体现行政诉讼起诉期限制度特色，又可以增强短期起诉期限适用的正当性和合理性的配套规则设计问题，缺乏给予应有的重视与关注。本文对在国家立法层面设置行政主体教示义务的必要性和可能性进行较为充分的论证，并提出具体的完善规则建议，以增强短期起诉期限适用的正当性和合理性。再次，学界对于起诉期限届满之后当事人还能否得到补救问题也缺乏关注，基本未曾有相关的文章专门涉及。本文以行政相对人在实践中如何有效地寻求行政救济的方式和途径为立足点，从行政救济体系的完整性和比较法的角度，专门探讨在起诉期限届满之后，行政相对人仍可以依法获得补救的方式和途径，以进一步完善行政争议解决的规则体系。
第三、制度设计的创新。本文建议以诉讼类型化、体系化的方法对我国行政诉讼时效制度的予以整体重构；借鉴域外经验，修改现有的行政赔偿程序和时效规则，改变当前司法实践中由于起诉期限适用范围过宽而客观上限缩了当事人获得赔偿救济机会的现象；并建议在适当的条件下引入“权利失效”、“程序重新进行”等新制度，增强行政诉讼时效制度设计和实施的合理性。
中文摘要
本文从诉讼类型化的角度，综合运用概念界定、历史分析、价值分析、规范分析和比较研究等方法，探讨了如何从整体上构建我国的行政诉讼时效制度以及进一步完善其中的起诉期限制度。除导言和结语外，全文共包括四章十五节，约20万字。以下简述本文的基本思路、观点和内容。
导言部分交待本文的研究背景和意义、研究现状、研究思路、研究方法和本文主要观点。
第一章为“起诉期限之界定”。主要内容是论述行政诉讼起诉期限的内涵、外延、性质和特征，行政诉讼起诉期限制度与受案范围、无效行政行为、行政复议、权利失效、行政强制执行、信访等相关制度的关系，以及行政诉讼起诉期限的效果和功能。本文通过分析和考察行政法学的核心理论——行政行为效力理论的发展历史以及起诉期限制度的形成，将起诉期限明确界定认为：?行政诉讼的起诉期限是法律规定的当事人不服某项行政决定向法院请求给予司法救济，行使行政撤销权的时间限制。它是比照民法上的除斥期间和诉讼法上的上诉期间进行设计和变造的，在性质上属于程序法上的法定期间，不能中断或者中止，特殊情况下才可申请延长或扣除被耽误的时间。也可称之为行政法的除斥期间（或不变期间）。通篇论文以此狭义的起诉期限概念为研究起点，分析我国当前立法和司法实践中奉行“撤销诉讼一体主义”，即所有行政案件都一律适用起诉期限这种独有的现象，以及当前大多数学术研究观点主张将现行起诉期限全面改造为类似民事诉讼时效规定的现象，指出上述两种截然不同的“一元化”时效规则设计思路的不足之处，论证我国行政诉讼时效规则设计应当“多元化”，起诉期限的设定和适用范围应当“有限化"的主题观点。
第二章为“起诉期限之设定"。我国现行《行政诉讼法》和司法解释只有一种时效规定——起诉期限，在司法实践中，对所有的行政行为、行政争议均适用同一的起诉期限规定，没有考虑到行政行为和行政争议的多样性，导致出现一些本不应适用而实践中却因强行适用起诉期限规则而造成对当事人正当权益救济不足的负面案例，引来了学界不少的批评声音。本章主要内容是在借鉴域外经验的基础上，从诉讼类型化这一新的视角，对各种诉讼类型的具体时效规则的历史发展、理论依据予以厘清，并对各种具体时效制度在解决实际行政争议规则体系中的地位、功能作出恰当的界定。重点讨论起诉期限与诉讼类型的关联性、起诉期限的设定范围。同时对有关修改我国《行政诉讼法》时效规则的现有学术观点进行评析，并在此基础上提出本文作者关于构建不同诉讼类型的时效规则和完善行政赔偿程序和时效规定的若干建议。建议借鉴域外经验，在行政撤销诉讼中保持现有的起诉期限，在行政给付诉讼中引入消灭时效，在确认诉讼中可以考虑引入权利失效等规则，解决一部分行政案件不能适用起诉期限规则情况下，应当适用什么时效规则，防止滥诉和无休止的缠诉现象的发生等。总而言之，本章的主要观点是，在诉讼类型化的背景下，我国行政诉讼整体的时效规则应当根据诉讼类型的不同而进行“多元化”设计，起诉期限的设定范围应当“有限化”，即起诉期限仅适用于撤销诉讼等直接涉及行政行为效力存废的特定诉讼类型。
第三章为“起诉期限之适用”。主要内容是讨论起诉期限的种类、起诉期限的计算、行政机关的教示起诉期限的义务、起诉期限的扣除、回复原状或延长以及起诉期限届满后的其他司法救济途径等相关具体规则的适用问题，结合实践中一些案例和反映出来的问题，对完善相关具体规则提出合理化的建议。针对许多批评我国短期起诉期限设置不合理、主张应当完全与民事诉讼时效趋同的文章往往所忽视一个重要问题，即本章重点讨论的最能体现撤销诉讼起诉期限制度设计特色的配套规则问题——行政主体教示救济期限的义务与起诉期限种类选择适用的关系问题，本文对在国家立法层面上设置行政主体教示义务的必要性和可能性进行较为充分的论证，在主张保留现有起诉期限规则的同时，提出具体的完善立法建议，以增强短期起诉期限适用的正当性和合理性。明确主张我国应借鉴域外的经验和做法，具体案件适用短期起诉期限时，必须以行政主体依法履行教示行政相对人救济事项义务为前提。
第四章为“起诉期限之补救”。当事人在起诉期限届满后是否仍有补救的程序和途径，这个问题目前我国学界基本未曾涉及。本章主要内容是介绍域外国家和地区有关起诉期限届满后的补救程序和途径，主要有“程序重新进行”和行政赔偿等具体的制度安排和做法，并在此基础上，对我国实践中存在“程序重新进行”现实需求、现有行政赔偿的程序和时效规则存在的缺陷和问题予以检讨，提出在适当时候引入“程序重新进行”制度并进一步修改完善我国有关行政赔偿的现有程序和时效规则的若干建议。笔者以行政相对人在实践中如何有效地寻求行政救济的方式和途径为立足点，从行政救济体系的完整性和比较法的角度，专门探讨在起诉期限届满之后，行政相对人的合法权益仍然可能获得补救的方式和途径，以进一步完善行政争议解决的规则体系。结语是对全文的总结，同时对我国行政诉讼时效制度的完善寄以期望。
关键词：行政诉讼；诉讼类型；起诉期限；时效
Abstract
This doctoral dissertation sets out to study the methodology of the completeconstruction of China's limitation of action in administrative litigation system andimprovement of the prosecution deadline system，under the light of litigation typesperspective, with many methods are applied, such as concept definition, historicalanalysis, value analysis，normative analysis and comparative research. Besides theparts of introduction and conclusion, the dissertation includes four sections,5chapters，about 200,000 words altogether. The following parts briefly describe thebasic ideas, viewpoints, and content of the thesis.
The introduction part gives an analysis of the research background, significance,status, ideas, methods and the main points of the dissertation.
The first chapter would explore the concept definition of the prosecutiondeadline in administrative litigation, including its discussion of the connotation,denotation, properties and characteristics, the relationships among the prosecutiondeadline of the administrative litigation, the scope of accepting cases, invalidadministrative act, administrative reconsideration, power failure，administrativecompulsory execution and petition letter, etc, also the effectiveness and functions ofprosecution deadline of the administrative litigation. In the dissertation, by analyzingand studying the core theory of the administrative law, the history of the theory ofadministrative effectiveness and the formation of the system of prosecution deadline,the dissertation intends to define the prosecution deadline as the following words: Theadministrative litigation prosecution deadline means the time limit of exercising theadministrative revocation right when the legal party involved is not satisfied with theadministrative decision and appeal to the court for judicial remedies. The definitionof the prosecution deadline is given according to the limitation of civil law and theappellate period of the procedural law. Prosecution deadline also referred as thescheduled period of the administrative law, in nature, is a period of time which isguaranteed by the law, where any interruption and suspension of it shall not beallowed, and compensation of time lost in unexpected delay and extension can only beallowed under certain specific conditions. Based on the narrowly defined prosecutiondeadline, the dissertation will justify the current situation of Chinese legislative andjudicial practice, where the regulation designing is limited to withdrawal, byanalyzing the phenomenon that the prosecution deadline can be applied to alladministrative cases, and by discussing the proposal of the majority scholars tochange the prosecution deadline to be something like the statute of limitations in thecivil procedure law, so as to point out the drawbacks of the designing of the abovementioned unitary limitation rules，and demonstrates the main idea of “pluralism” indesigning the prosecution deadline of the administrative litigation provisions in China,in other words, the setting and suitable range of application of the prosecutiondeadline in administrative litigation cases shall be “limited”.
The second chapter will study the Setting of the Prosecution Deadline. In China,only one statute of limitation (prosecution deadline) has been held in the currentAdministrative litigation Law and its judicial interpretation. In judicial practices, thevery same time limit for prosecution is aimed to be applied to all kinds ofadministrative acts and controversies. Ignoring their diversities has led to manynegative cases in which the legitimate right and interests of the parties are failed to besafeguarded, quite severely arousing criticism from scholars. In this chapter, by usingthe foreign experience as reference, the author clarifies the historical development andthe theoretical foundation of different types of limitation rules based on a newperspective of the classification of prosecution. Besides, the author will define theposition and function of each limitation rule in solving the administrativecontroversies in real situation. The dissertation focuses on the relevance betweenlimitation period and type of prosecution, and the range of the prosecution deadline.
Meanwhile, the paper discusses the current academic viewpoints on revising thelimitation rules of Administrative litigation Law of china and puts forth severaladvices on the establishment of limitation rules in accordance with differentprosecution types and the improvement of administrative compensation procedure andlimitation rules.It focus on the relevance between prosecution deadline and litigationtype and setting range of prosecution deadline. It analysizes the current academicviewpoints on revising limitation rules in China's Administrative Litigation Law andon that basis the author offer some proposals on limitation rules of different litigationtypes and perfecting administrative compensation procedure and limitation rules. Theauthor propose that by using extraterritorial experience for reference that China canmaintain the existing prosecution deadline in administrative repeal lawsuit, introduceextinctive prescription into administrative granting lawsuit，introduce the invalidationof right rules into administrative confirmation lawsuit and solve the problem of whatlimitation rules should be applied to prevent the phenomena of indiscriminate lawsuitsand undying importunate lawsuits when some administrative cases can't be applied tothe rules of prosecution deadline. In short, the main idea of this chapter is that underthe background of typed litigation, the whole limitation rules in China'sadministrative litigation should be diversified designed according to the differences oflitigation types and setting range of prosecution deadline should be limited, whichmeans prosecution deadline is only applied to specific litigation types such as repeallawsuit and the types directly connected to the abolition of validity of administrativeact.
The three chapter would discuss the Application of Prosecution Deadline. Themain idea is to offer reasonable proposals on perfecting specific rules in connectionwith type setting of prosecution deadline, teaching obligations of administrativebodies, prosecution deadline's deduction, restitutio in integrum and extension, theother judicial remedy ways after prosecution deadline expires and so on. Manyarticles criticizing that the setting of short-term prosecution deadline in China is notreasonable have ignored an important question, namely this chapter's discussion isfocused on the setting rule problemthe connection between administrativesubjects' teaching obligation of remedy deadline and optional application to the typesof prosecution deadline, which can embody the designing characteristic ofadministrative repeal lawsuit's prosecution deadline system most. This paper has fullydemonstrated the necessity and possibility in setting teaching obligations ofadministrative subjects in national legislation, and offered specific proposals onperfecting rules to strengthen the legitimacy and rationality of short-term applicationof prosecution deadline. It clearly advocates that China should use foreign experienceand methods for reference. Specific cases' application of short-term prosecutiondeadline must be on the premise that administrative body has performed theobligations of teaching remedies to administrative counterpart legally.
The chapter four would study the Remedy for Prosecution Deadline. Theproblem that whether parties still have remedy procedures and ways after prosecutiondeadline expires has basically not referred to in China's academic. The chapter's maincontent is to introduce the remedy procedures and ways after prosecution deadlineexpires in extraterritorial countries and districts, including specific systemarrangements and methods such as “run procedure again” and administrativecompensation and so on. On that basis, the paper has made a self-criticism to theexisting defects and problems of realistic demands of "run procedure again”，currentprocedure of administrative compensation and limitation rules in practice in China,and offered several proposals on introducing "run procedure again" system at the righttime and further revised and perfected the current procedure of administrativecompensation and limitation rules in China. The author takes that how administrativecounterpart can effectively find the remedy procedures and ways in practice asfoothold, from the perspective of integrity of administrative remedy system andcomparative law, specially discussing the possible procedure and way thatadministrative counterpart still can get after prosecution deadline expires，so as tofurther perfect the rule system of solving administrative dispute.
Keywords: administrative litigation； litigation type； prosecution deadline； limitation
返回本篇博士论文目录查看全文 下一篇：导言
