依法行政与行政法治

1.依法行政·································································3

    1.1依法行政的含义···················································3

1.2依法行政的原则···················································3

1.3依法行政的合法性·················································3

1.4依法行政的合理性·················································4

1.5     依法行政的公正性·················································5

    1.6     依法行政的责任性·················································5

2.行政法治·································································6

2.1行政法治的含义···················································6

    2.2     行政法治的分析···················································6

    2.3     行政法治原则·····················································7

3.依法行政和行政法治的区别·················································9

4.  依法行政和行政法治的价值意义··········································11                                              

总  结······································································12

致  谢······································································14

参考文献·································································15                                                   

内 容 摘 要

     行政机关的活动方式由庞大的行为体系构成,不真正的行政事实行为是其中特有的一类行为，民法上的事实行为理论无法对其进行透彻的分析。从法律意义、意思表示、法律规范等角度对不真正的行政事实行为进行分析，可以看出其有别于单纯的事实行为、真正的行政事实行为、行政法律行为以及准行政法律行为，应当在行政法上构架起真正的行政事实行为与不真正的行政事实行为并列的行政事实行为体系，为行政事实行为规制奠定基础。

行政活动的形式是纷繁复杂的，对其进行结构化整理并构建起行为类型体系是行政法学的首要任务，也是行政法治化的必由之路。由于民法的先在性和完备性，晚出的行政法在类型化其行为体系的过程中必然会借鉴民法的概念和理论，这是不可避免的理论迁移。行政法以民法理论为依托，将行政活动形式区分为法律行为和事实行为，藉此再进行次划分。不过,作为私法的民法和作为公法的行政法具有不同的质的规定性，无法将民法理论直接套用到行政法中。对于诸如公共警告、主动的信息公开、保护环境宣传、警察巡逻等之类的行为,行政法学通常把其归入行政事实行为体系中，但是，这类行为与民法理论上界定的事实行为存在重大差别，可以将其称之为不真正的行政事实行为，因此，行政法中的事实行为体系中就应当包括真正的行政事实行为和不真正的行政事实行为这两大并列的类别。本文着重于构造不真正的行政事实行为理论，并希望以此能够将行政法律行为、真正的行政事实行为和不真正的行政事实行为进行较为精确的区分，从而重新构建我国行政法的行政行为体系。

关键词：依法行政；行政法治；行政意思表示；行政法律规范；