林华,楚天舒.我国公共文化法律有效实施的思考——以《公共文化服务保障法》《公共图书馆法》为中心[J].中国图书馆学报,2019,45(4):12~28
The Reflection on the Enforcement of Public Culture Law in China: Centered on the Security Legislation of Public Cultural Serviceand the Public Library Law
我国公共文化法律有效实施的思考——以《公共文化服务保障法》《公共图书馆法》为中心
Received:May 16, 2019  Revised:June 11, 2019
DOI:
Key words:Public culture  Public libraries  Law enforcement  Cultural law enforcement  The Security Legislation of Public Cultural Service  The Public Library Law
中文关键词:  公共文化  公共图书馆  法律实施  文化执法  公共文化服务保障法  公共图书馆法
基金项目:本文系文化和旅游部委托项目“公共文化法律法规实施机制研究”的研究成果之一
Author NameAffiliationE-mail
LIN Hua 中国政法大学法治政府研究院 北京 100088 linhua0604@163.com,linhua0604@163.com 
CHU Tianshu 中国政法大学法治政府研究院 北京 100088  
Hits: 436
Download times: 0
Abstract:
The implementation of public cultural law is an important part of promoting rule of law in the field of culture and promoting the development and prosperity of public culture. In order to reveal the current situation and problems of the implementation of the public cultural law in China and to promote the future improvement of the implementation of the public cultural law, this paper makes a preliminary study and reflection on the implementation of the public cultural law in China by using text analysis, empirical research analysis, historical analysis and other methods. The study reveals that in the legal system of public culture including the Law on the Security Legislation of Public Cultural Serviceand the Public Library Law, the subjects of legal obligations are divided into agencies, public cultural facilities management units (including public libraries, museums, etc.), and other organizations and individuals. Different legal entities have different legal obligations. Other organizations and individuals bear negative obligations. Public cultural facilities management units are responsible for specific payment obligations, while agencies are responsible for abstract payment obligations.
The traditional cultural law implementation approach (the cultural law enforcement model) is based on the deterrence theory and applies to the private subjects in the field of cultural market. From the perspective of its generation and structure, this model has strong normativeness, pertinence and limitations. The implementation of cultural market law with legal autonomy as the basic concept cannot fully match the characteristics of public culture law, so it needs to reflect the implementation of public culture law. The agencies and public cultural facilities management units in the public cultural legal system are all public power departments that undertake public services and have public functions. The traditional cultural law enforcement mode for private subjects cannot be applied or not applicable. Other organizations and individuals in public cultural legal systems cannot directly apply cultural enforcement models for cultural market. Therefore, on the one hand, agencies and public cultural facilities management units in the field of public cultural law still lack effective legal enforcement mechanisms, and there is no effective means of governance for their illegal activities; on the other hand, the illegal behavior of other organizations and individuals in the field of public cultural law can not be applied to the traditional cultural law enforcement model, and they also face the dilemma of lack of legal implementation.
Based on the nature of the legal obligation subject and the content of the obligation in the public cultural legal system, it is reasonable to apply the soft law mechanism for the implementation of public cultural law to the agencies and public cultural facilities management units that undertake the functions of public power, to comprehensively apply interviews, supervision, evaluation to realize the legal obligations of public institutions, to play the role of the comprehensive coordination mechanism of public cultural services, to formulate relevant management measures and implementation rules for public cultural services, to extend the cultural enforcement mechanism applicable to public cultural laws to other organizations and individuals that are subjects of private rights. So there is a public cultural law implementation model that combines the soft approach with the traditional approach. First, to build an “enforcement pyramid” and to adopt a regulatory strategy that combines incentives and deterrence. Secondly, the combination of meta regulation and self regulation is an important legal implementation path for implementing public cultural legal obligations. Finally, internal oversight is combined with external oversight. 1 fig. 1 tab. 39 refs.
中文摘要:
      在包括《公共文化服务保障法》《公共图书馆法》在内的公共文化法律体系中,法律义务主体分为行政机关、公共文化设施管理单位(包括公共图书馆、博物馆等)、其他组织和个人。不同的义务主体,其法律义务的性质也不尽相同,其他组织和个人承担的是消极不作为义务,公共文化设施管理单位承担的是具体给付义务,行政机关承担的则是抽象给付义务。传统的文化法律实施机制(即文化执法模式)建立在威慑理论基础上,适用于文化市场监管领域的私权利主体。公共文化法律体系中的行政机关、公共文化设施管理单位都是承担公共服务、履行公共职能的公权力部门,传统针对私权利主体的文化执法模式不能适用或不宜适用,公共文化法律体系中的其他组织和个人也不能直接适用针对文化市场监管的文化执法模式。基于公共文化法律体系中法律义务主体和义务内容的性质,宜对承担公权力职能的行政机关和公共文化设施管理单位适用公共文化法律实施的软法机制,对属于私权利主体的其他组织和个人扩展适用公共文化法律的文化执法机制,进而构造出一种软法机制和传统机制交融的公共文化法律实施模式。图1。 表1。参考文献39。
Download PDF   View/Add Comment  Download reader