论“公共利益”的界定模式

  The courts would then apply the legislative (and administrative if any) interpretations of public good to a specific factual dispute. Normally the administrative agency would not apply the statute to a specific dispute where the government is taking private property. This would be done by the courts.  Sometimes in order to apply the meaning of public good, the judges would have to interpret the statute or administrative regulations, but the judges would not go against the intent of the legislature or the administrative agency.

  The exception to this normal procedure would be if the legislative statute definition of public good conflicts with the Constitution.  Happily this is a very rare situation, but if it does occur that the Congress statute conflicts with the Constitution, then the judges are bound to apply the highest law (the Constitution) and strike down the legislative statute.  (The power to strike down a statute because it conflicts with the Constitution is fairly rare, and the judges have many techniques to try to avoid such a result.)

  [②] 在这一点上，法国存在相似做法。据法国埃克斯--马赛第三大学公法学者Christine CHAIGNE向笔者介绍，法国在公益征收征用时对公共利益的界定，是由行政机关依据一些基本原则确认，相对人若有争议，则诉之行政法院，由行政法院法官最终裁定。笔者以为，法国采取这种模式的原因：一是公益征收征用案件较少；二是公众对法官的信任程度高；三是据她介绍，由于法国补偿额高，往往超过市价，相对人对公益征收征用是“偷着乐”，故无多少争议。
  [③]目前许多省级法院用文件形式制定办案的实体或程序规则，实际是一种违法行为。