论文部分内容阅读
信访属性的认定是信访研究中的基础性问题。在研究信访时,如果无法判定信访的属性,即信访是不是一项权利、是何种类型的权利,那么后续对信访事实的解读和信访改革方案的讨论就会沦为“无根之木”“无源之水”。通过文献梳理,可以发现有关信访属性的认知目前学界存在两种截然不同的观点:一种观点认为,信访是公民的一项权利,信访制度本身具有合法性和正当性;另一种观点则认为,信访不是一项权利,它只是公民所享有的现行宪法第四十一条规定的基本权利的一种行使方式。从这一理论争辩中,不难发现对信访属性的判定关系到信访制度存在的正当性,关系到对信访人权益的实质性保护,因而是未来信访改革方案择取的理论根基。有鉴于此,本文拟结合关于信访属性认定的学术成果,从历史和现实两个层面分析信访权利属性问题,以期为信访制度的改革提供适切的建议。
The identification of the letter and visit attributes is the basic problem in the study of letters and visits. In the study of letters and visits, if you can not determine the attributes of letters and visits, that is, is not a letter of petition a right, what kind of right, then the follow-up interpretation of the petition letter and the petition reform program will be reduced to “rootless ”“ Passive water ”. Through the literature review, we can find out that there are two different opinions in the academic field: one is the view that petitioning is a right of citizens, and the petition system itself is legitimate and justified; the other one is that It believes that petitioning is not a right, it is only a way of exercising the basic rights provided for by Article 41 of the current Constitution enjoyed by citizens. From this theoretical debate, it is not difficult to find that the judgment of the right to petition relates to the legitimacy of the petition system, which is related to the substantive protection of petitioners’ rights and interests. Therefore, it is the theoretical basis for the future petition reform. In view of this, this article intends to combine the academic achievements on the identification of letters and visits to analyze the rights and interests of letters and visits from both historical and realistic perspectives, with a view to providing appropriate suggestions for the reform of the letter and visit system.