行政立法乃是行政部門經由立法機關的明確授權或本於法定職權以法條形式制頒規範 各種行政業務補充法律不足的法規命令之權。行政立法制度的發展乃是近代以來各國 社會客觀環境與思想觀念轉變後的產物，其所具劃時代的意義即為明顯。各國行政機 關在獲得此種授權後，不僅職權範圍擴大，且在性質方面也注入新的成分，此種情形 對對於行政權作用的發揮與行政效率的增進均有莫大的助益。不過為了避免行政部門 濫用行政立法權，破壞了法令之間應有的分際和損害人民權益等流弊，各民主國家對 於行政立法制度的發展莫不著重於如何對其做妥適的監督，就我國而言，由於立法院 對行政立法的監督，具有經常性與全面性的特色，因此特別值得重視。本文便是針對 此一主題所做的探討，並對相關問題有所申論。 本文共分五章加以處理，各章要旨如下： 第一章緒論，共分三節說明本文研究動機、研究範圍、研究目的，所採取的研究方法 及資料搜集的依據。 第二章行政立法制度的理論基礎，共分三節。說明行政立法內涵及其本質; 行政立法 制度的基本急議及行政立法的有效要件。

本文的目的是探討俄羅斯聯邦 1992 年至 1993 年的府會政爭。作者經由俄羅斯憲法的設計及實際運作的情形，來分析行政權與立法權的衝突，以期瞭解俄羅斯政治危機的動因。 同時，作者也觀察了新憲法架構下政治權力間的互動情形，並分析現行俄羅斯政治體制的特色。 / The purpose of the thesis is discussing the political conflict between Administration and Legislation of the Russian Frderation from 1992 to 1993. By describing the design of the Russian Constitution and the practical operations, the author analyses the conflict between Administration and Legislation to find out the reasons of the Russian political crisis. Besides, the author observes the interactions of the political powers and analyses the character of the present Russian political system.

關鍵字：行政權、內閣制、總統制、半總統制、總統、行政院院長、中國國民黨、民主進步黨 「行政權」在任何政治體制的運作中，都是一個無法令人忽略的中心，對我國來說亦正是相同，尤其是在談最高行政權的歸屬。而在我國的憲法中，與行政權牽涉最深的，莫過於總統與行政院，所以我國「行政權」的中心，究竟是在總統抑或是行政院長，就是憲法研究者不曾中斷的探討議題。是故本文就是將從理論基礎－民主國家主要中央最高行政權歸屬類型、我國相關規定以及我國實際運作狀況來研究我國中央最高行政權歸屬的問題。 在理論基礎的探討上，本文發現實行總統制的國家之中央最高行政權是歸屬於總統，也就是國家元首即最高行政首長；而實行議會內閣制的國家之中央最高行政權是歸屬於內閣首相或總理，也就是國家元首與行政首長分由兩人擔任；至於實行半總統制的國家，是由總統及總理二者來共同分享行政權，惟權力關係劃分不清，彼此的權力消長，是隨著議會席次的變化而決定的，所以其中央最高行政權歸屬是未定的，換句話說，任何半總統制的憲法，必須以某種方式，建立國家元首總統與政府首長內閣總理的兩頭政治體制。 在我國相關規定的探討上，本文從孫中山原始想法以及相關憲法條文著手，本文發現：第一、孫中山的原始想法是較傾向於我國應為總統制的政治制度，也就是我國中央最高行政權應是歸屬於總統；第二、五五憲草的政治制度與美國式的純粹總統制仍有不同，但其精神是較傾向於總統制的政治制度應是沒有疑問的，因此是中央最高行政權屬於總統的類型；第三、從憲法本文來看，我國中央最高行政權是屬於行政院長；第四、從臨時條款來看，我國中央最高行政權是歸屬於總統；第五、從增修條文來看，由於中央政府體制的若干變動，所以使得我國有法國第五共和「半總統制」取向，不過行政院院長是我國最高行政首長應還是確定的，畢竟最根本的憲法第五十三條並沒有任何變更；至於總統只會在所謂的大政方針上有其決策權，畢竟任何政策要落實還是得靠行政院來推行，而且責任政治仍是以行政院作為主角，因此這應該都是沒有疑問的。 在我國實際運作狀況的探討上，本文發現在中國國民黨執政時期，不論是動員戡亂時期或是增修條文時期，由於受到「以黨領政機制」這個關鍵性因素的影響，因此我國中央最高行政權幾乎部是歸屬於總統，除嚴家淦擔任總統、蔣經國先生擔任主席兼行政院院長時期除外；至於在民主進步黨執政時期，由於陳水扁總統是完全以總統制下的實權總統在操作著各種施政作為，包括人事、公共政策皆然，所以這段時間以來，我們清楚地看到，我國中央最高行政權是歸屬於總統的。 為了避免因認知不同而導致我國憲法條文規範與實際運作有差距的情形繼續存在，本文最後建議將來不論我國體制究竟要走向何方，都應再修憲。而相較於總統制與內閣制，本文雖然也不否認半總統制有些問題存在，但卻認為是我國現在必須應繼續遵循的制度，畢竟這樣一方面可以滿足人民要求總統是由直選產生，並至少其有部分實權的期待，另一方面又可讓立法院可像內閣制下的國會較有揮灑的空間，而且這樣的架構基本上還是屬於責任政治的機制，是與我國憲法本文的精神相近，因此這是本文支持繼續沿用此制的主要理由；進一步來說，本文會在三種制度中，會支持我國應繼續採行半總統制的理由，更重要是因為其完全符合下列三項原則：1.中央最高行政權的歸屬基本精神應是有權有責，2.中央最高行政權的歸屬設計應將我國傳統政治文化內涵納入考量，3.孫中山與最高行政權歸屬之相關想法，我們也應將之列為未來體制設計的考量範疇。本文希望，立委諸公們在下次修憲時，能真正拋開個人及黨派私利，以為國家提供一個非因人或因黨設事、可以真正長治久安的制度來思考，在一旦通過施行後要完全尊重且服從，如此我國中央行政權歸屬將不會再出現理論與實際的巨大落差，而所有因之紛紛擾擾的事情亦將不再，這才是國家人民之福。

No description available.

Since 1980, a wave of new regulatory reform policies washed over the world, tightly controlled industries shrugged off their chains, and public institutions were privatized. The wellspring of regulatory reform is the global trend towards liberalization and privatization. Even so, the scope of government regulation is still wide, but the processes of this type of control changed and the administrative acts diversified. Among these administrative acts, the administrative contract is much more special than others. First of all, unlike other legal concepts that were important from German or Japan, it is a unique system in French administrative law. Secondly, the special mission of administrative contracts merits attention. Although we called it an administrative "contracts", some government privileges are attached to realize the administrative object. After the enactment of Administrative Procedures Law in 1998, the administrative contract has been recognized as a formal act in Taiwan, and it is important to know how to use it. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to find the solutions given to problems arising in our administrative law through understanding how administrative contracts work in France. To understand the notion clearly and correctly, we shall find the source of administrative contracts and then study the definition. The two basic criteria of the former are that the contract relates to a public service and the contract reserves exceptional powers to the administration (the clauses exorbitantes du droit commun). In Taiwan, the definition of administrative contracts is similar, but the criteria are quite different. To learn French experience in this regard for the purpose of the improvement of our system is the topic issue in the chapter second. However, the definition is just a basis to develop my issue in this thesis. This thesis focuses on the effect and execution of administrative contracts. At the third and the fourth chapter, I will devote more space to discuss how an administrative contract is made and the value of the intentions of the parties. Because of the France has always regarded an administrative contract as essentially an arrangement between unequal parties, public authorities have powers to redefine the character of the service to performed or the work to be done in order to meet the changing needs of the public interest. How about the administrative contracts work in Taiwan? Do we admit exceptional powers to the administration? What are the differences between the regulations in France and Taiwan? After an initial research, I find that the underlying foundations of administrative contracts in two countries are quite different, so the systems appear differently. However, identifying foreign precedents on similar problems and their possible solutions will certainly provide useful insights for local consumption. In addition, of course, I deal with a review of the concept of administrative contract in the Supreme Court Justices' decisions in the Judicial Yuan to figure out the main change of our jurisprudence. Then try to organize the judgments in the Administrative Court from 1999 when the Administrative Procedure Law and Administrative Litigation Law were significant legislated. Based on the research in this study, I examine the main categories of existing contract -B.O.T.- with the comparison between Taiwan and France. So what could we do more and learn from the experience in France is the topic issues in the fifth chapter. The final chapter is the general observations. As we know, our law on administration is far less developed than that in France. Much of it remains in the realm of practice rather than law. Nevertheless, there are increasing pressures for our law in this field to develop：changes are being made by significant legislations of the Administrative Procedure Law and Administrative Litigation Law. Our scholars as well as judges work very hard to build a modern system of administrative law .As a result, the French systematization in this area will provide a much-needed guide when we facing the same problems in the future, which will be encountered as our law develops.