内容摘要
    《行政诉讼法》的实施带给人们太多的期待，同时在运行中也带给人们太多的无奈，尤其是高比例的撤诉更让人们对法律信仰的天平产生了倾斜。这种情况之所以会引起人们的关注，是因为在行政诉讼撤诉案件中，正常撤诉的寥寥无几，非正常撤诉却不胜枚举。那么，症结出现在何处？本文沿着这一谜团将目光聚焦到管辖制度上，深入分析了我国行政诉讼的现状，从中国传统的文化观念和乡土人情社会的视角来重新审视行政诉讼级别管辖的问题，以等级观念为基础，提出了“级高不审查”原则，同时总结西方的行政法院制度的得失，最后提出了建立以提高级别管辖，辅之以基层法院和异地审理的“一提两补”的三位一体的级别管辖制度。
    本文除引言和结语外共四部分，约4万字，主要内容如下：
    一、行政诉讼撤诉抛出的谜团。高位运行的非正常撤诉案件长期以来穿着撤诉案件的光彩外衣大行其道，但光芒消失后，人们所看到的是作为原告的一方当事人战战兢兢，作为被告的一方当事人盛气凌人，而夹缝中的法院和法官则背上了道德和精神的双重压力变得日益式威。本文在这部分深入分析了撤诉率高这个谜团，然后将其成因解剖开来，揭示出人、财、物受制于某些行政机关的法院往往来审理这些行政机关作为被告的案件，这样的诉讼制度弊端无疑是造成撤诉率高的根本原因。
    二、我国行政诉讼管辖的现状及问题考。该部分从我国行政诉讼管辖的现状入手，考察了其特征，并且深刻分析了目前存在于行政诉讼管辖中的各种问题：1.级别管辖审级过低，法院面对高行政级别的被告时压力过大，2.地域管辖的“原告就被告”原则使得地方干涉从可能转为现实，3.均衡法院负担原则未得到落实，造成法院工作量的不均衡4.具有特殊性的行政诉讼管辖制度不能单纯的效仿民事诉讼，5.管辖权下移使地方保护主义“有法可依”，6.法院体制的设置存在着亟待解决的缺陷，7.司法权对行政权的依附，行政权对司法权的干涉，8.乡土人情社会的底蕴所衍生出来大量的“人情案”。在此基础上，又分析了产生出上述诸多问题的管辖级别、权力配置、经济基础和文化传统四大根源，将我国行政诉讼级别管辖的现状和出现的问题全面的呈现出来。
    三、对在行政诉讼中确立“级高不审查”原则的考察。该部分首先从社会等级流变和维系出发，对等级制度进行了深入的分析。虽然等级制度大多涉及社会与政治，但本文并非仅囿于此，而是从更为广阔的视野来看待这一问题。经过对不含隶属与递进关系的无差别等级，仅含有一元递进的亚等级以及对社会等级中维持秩序的等级和奴性等级的探讨得出三点结论：第一，无论是无差别的等级还是存差别的等级都是一种规范、衡平的次序；第二，等级无所谓善恶，要看控制等级的权力性质；第三，等级的权力次序之别具有正当性。在对等级制度的内涵进行解剖的基础上，认为以往将等级制度作为封建糟粕的传统观念有待商榷，同时指出，等级维系的秩序性和正当性具有进步意义。由此通过分析等级正当性、提高审级、文化观念和国情四大因素，提出在行政诉讼管辖中确立“级高不审查”原则。
    四、提升审判审级完善行政诉讼管辖的合理化建议。长期以来，我国学术界都存在着设立行政法院以解决目前行政诉讼诸多难题的呼声。本文在该部分中，首先对西方一些国家的行政法院制度从其确立的背景和发挥的功效进行了考察，与中国就其制度本身、经济成本、体制问题以及社会结构和文化观念进行了深入的比较。就目前我国的具体制度设计来看，完全导入行政法院制度尚显过早。而通过我国现行管辖制度的修改和完善便能从一定程度上解决的问题付之于一个成本高昂的可能性期待，从某种意义上说是不负责任的。然后本文从中国的传统观念和社会结构出发，探讨了我国不同于西方“绝对权利”的“相对权利”和以血缘为基础形成地缘纽带的稳定的差序格局，主张行渐进之路，以提高审级为基础不断完善我国的行政诉讼管辖制度。第一，在“级高不审查”原则指导下确立由中级人民法院管辖第一审行政案件的制度，提高行政审判审级；第二，高级人民法院管辖本辖区内重大、复杂的第一审行政案件；第三，最高人民法院管辖全国范围内重大、复杂的第一审行政案件；最后，取消管辖权下放的规定。同时赋予当事人管辖选择权，发挥基层法院的补充作用；吸收美国民事诉讼中异籍管辖制度的经验，对一些特殊案件采取异地审理的方式。最终，建立“一提两补”的行政诉讼管辖制度。

    关键词： 级别管辖    等级    级高不审查    管辖选择权 

    Abstract
    The implement of Law of Administrative Proceedings brings people too many expectations, but in the meantime it is somehow incapable in its application, especially the high rate of withdrawal of accusation, which causes the imbalance of the scales of people’s belief in law. The reason why this situation causes people\'s concerns is because among all the withdrawn administrative lawsuits there are few normal withdrawals but numerous abnormal withdrawals. So, where is the sticking point? This thesis, with this puzzle, focuses the vision to jurisdiction system, analyzes present conditions of administration litigation in our country, and re-examines the problems of administration litigation from the angle of view of Chinese traditional culture and indigenous human feelings society. Based on the idea of hierarchy, the thesis puts forwards a principle of “high level no examination”, meanwhile it summaries the gain and loss of western administration courts. Finally, it puts forward establishment of the differentiated jurisdiction system of trinity of \"a lift and two supplements\", namely, enhancement of the rank of jurisdiction and being complemented by grass-roots courts and trial in other place.
    In spite of the introduction and conclusion, the thesis, being about 40000 words, is divided into four parts. The main contents are as follows:
    Firstly, it expounds withdrawal of administration litigation cases which brings the riddle. Under the cloak of withdrawal of a case, massive abnormal withdrawal of cases has long existed. But when people unveil the cloak, what people see is that a plaintiff is meticulous and a defendant is arrogant. The court and judge in the crevice, burdened with the dual pressure of morals and spirit, become increasingly weightless.     This part of the thesis analyzes and expounds the reason of the high rate of withdrawal, and then exposes its primary cause is that the court is bound to the accused administrations by their manpower, finance and materials.
    Secondly, it describes and analyzes current situations and problems of administration litigation jurisdiction in our country. This part begins with the present conditions to investigate its characteristic, and analyzes thoroughly various existing problems: 1.the jurisdiction level is so low that the court will assume too much pressure when facing the defendant; 2.the principle of “upside-down onus probandi” in the regional jurisdiction turns regional interference from possibility into reality; 3.the principle of balanced burden for court isn\'t implemented, resulting in the unbalance of courts’ workload; 4.the system of administration litigation jurisdiction can\'t simply imitate civil procedure; 5.transference of jurisdiction to a lower level makes regional protectionism seem to be “legal”; 6.there are drawbacks that need to solve immediately in the constitution of court system; 7.the judicature depends on administrative power, and administrative power interferes in judicature; 8.the society with indigenous human feelings brings out a great deal of \"human relations” cases. On the basis of the above, it also analyzes the four sources to produce an above-mentioned problems, that is, jurisdiction level, allocation of power, economic foundation and the cultural tradition, and then roundly illustrates present conditions and emerging problems in our country.
    Thirdly, it investigates the establishment of the principle of  “high level no examination”. This part, to begin with, analyzes the caste system from the view of the development of social hierarchy. Although the caste system mostly involves society and politics, the thesis isn’t constrained by these factors and explores the problem in a broader view. Through the exploration of the indiscrimination grade including subjection and progressive relation, unary progressive sub-grade, the grade to maintain social order and slavish grade, it concludes: To begin with, no matter the grade is indiscriminate or differential, it is a kind of sequence with regulation and equilibration; moreover, grade doesn\'t mean good or evil, what really counts is the control power beneath the grade; finally, the difference of grade of the power sequence is of justice. On the basis of the connotation of caste system, it expounds that the traditional idea that deems the caste system as the feudal and bad factor needs to be reconsidered, in the meantime it points out the order and justice supported by the grade is of great importance. Through the analysis of the four factors, namely, grade justice, exaltation of jurisdiction level, cultural idea and the situation of our country, it puts forward establishing the principle of “high level no examination”.
    Fourthly, it brings forward rational suggestions to perfect administration litigation jurisdiction. For a long time, academia in our country have been calling for establishing an administration court to solve the current difficult problems about administration litigations. This part of the thesis investigates the background and effect of administration court of some western countries, and makes a thorough comparison with China from the view of system itself, economic costs, system problem and social structure and cultural idea. As far as the concrete design of our country’s system, it appears too early to introduce the administration court system. It is somewhat irresponsible to carry out a possible expectation with high cost, because problems, to some extent, can be solved by modification and development of our country’s current jurisdiction system. And then this thesis sets out from Chinese traditional idea and social structure to inquiry into \"relative right\" in our country which differs from “absolute right\" in western countries and stable structure based on blood relationship, and it advocates to advance gradually to develop the administration litigation system with the exaltation of jurisdiction level. To begin with, under the direction of “high level no examination” principle it establishes the system of the first-instance tried by the Intermediate People\'s Court to raise administration jurisdiction level; secondly, the high people’s court dominates grave and complicated first-instance administrative cases within its magistracy; thirdly, the Supreme People\'s Court rules over national grave and complicated first-instance administration cases; Finally, the provision to transfer jurisdiction to a lower level should be canceled. In the meantime, it provides parties with an option of jurisdiction to develop the complement function of basic level court; learning from the experience for different nationalities in the American civil procedure, to some special cases it adopts jurisdiction in other places. At last it establishes the administration litigation jurisdiction system of “a lift and two supplements\"

    Keyword: differentiated jurisdiction  hierarchy  high level no examination option of jurisdiction

    目  录
    引  言
    一、行政诉讼撤诉抛出的迷团
    二、我国行政诉讼管辖的现状及问题考
    （一）我国行政诉讼管辖的现状
    1．诉讼管辖的涵义解析
    2．我国行政诉讼管辖的现状
    3．我国行政诉讼管辖的特征
    （二）我国行政诉讼管辖折射出的问题
    1．级别管辖审级过低，法院面对高行政级别的被告时压力过大
    2．地域管辖的“原告就被告”原则使得地方干涉从可能转为现实
    3．均衡法院负担原则未得到落实
    4．具有特殊性的行政诉讼管辖制度不能单纯的效仿民事诉讼
    5．管辖权下移使地方保护主义“有法可依”
    6．法院体制的设置存在着亟待解决的缺陷
    7．司法权对行政权的依附，行政权对司法权的干涉
    8．乡土人情社会的底色所衍生出来的“人情案”
    （三）考察问题产生的原因
    1．管辖级别之因
    2．权力配置之因
    3．经济基础之因
    4．文化传统之因
    三、对在行政诉讼中确立级高不审查原则的考察
    （一）等级之辨
    1．社会等级简考
    2．等级的解析
    3．等级的效用
    （二）确立级高不审查原则探析
    1．级高不审查原则涵义解析
    2．级高不审查原则确立之利益考
    四、提升审判审级完善行政诉讼管辖的合理化建议
    （一）建立中院一般管辖以提升级别管辖的分析
    1．行政法院引发的考量
    2．乡土人情社会攫取的思维
    3．提高行政审判审级的分析
    （二）基层人民法院行政审判庭补充作用的分析
    1．保留基层人民法院行政审判庭对中级人民法院一审的补充
    2．保留基层人民法院行政审判庭保持人民法院体系的一致性
    （三）构建异地审理对级别管辖提升加以补充的分析
    1．美国异籍管辖制度的考察
    2．构建异地审理补充作用的分析
    结    语
    参考文献

    说明：本文引用文章皆有注释，但录入电脑中未显示，详至清华同方中国知网（CNKI）等主流数据库检索本文。