憲法權利何時約束私人行為──美國的州行為理論及其借鑒

When May Constitutional Rights Restrain Private Conducts:An Analysis of the State Action Doctrine in the U.S.

"憲法權利在何種情況下得以約束私人行為，是中美兩國共同的理論課題和現實議題。根據美國聯邦最高法院的州行為理論，憲法權利一般僅約束政府行為，但若私人行為與政府行為存在充分關聯，前者則有可能被擬制為""州行為""從而受到憲法權利的約束。從該法院的一系列相關案件來看，州行為的認定存在兩條基本進路:兩段分析法和歸類分析法。后者包括四個具體標準:政府影響、公共職能、聯合行為和司法執行標準。對于私人行為構成州行為的情形，兩段分析法有所遺漏同時限定不足;歸類分析法之下的聯合行為、司法執行標準也存在邏輯局限。1970年以后，聯邦最高法院認定州行為的尺度趨于嚴格，憲法權利對私人行為的限制范圍明顯縮小。總體而言，州行為理論一方面有利于維系私人自治、契約自由和市場競爭，另一方面有助于防止政府間接侵犯憲法權利以及規避憲法責任，可以為我國提供鏡鑒。"

"Both China and the United States face the same theoretical and practical issue: under what circumstances constitutional rights may restrain private conducts. According to the state action doctrine established by the U. S. Supreme Court, constitutional rights generally only apply to government actions, however, when there is a sufficient relevance between a private action and a government one, as an artificial ""state action"",the former may be restrained by constitutional rights. Judging from relevant U. S. Supreme Court cases, state actions could be identified in two basic approaches: the two-part approach and the classification approach.The latter contains four specific standards: government involvement, public function, combined action and judicial enforcement. The first approach does ignore some situations in which a private action can constitute a state action and does not fully define others; both standards of combined action and judicial enforcement under the second one also have logical limitations. After 1970, the Supreme Court tended to identify state actions more strictly, so the range of private conducts subject to constitutional rights was narrowed down clearly. On the one hand, the state action doctrine contributes to preserve private autonomy, freedom of contract and market competition; on the other hand, it helps to prevent the government from infringing constitutional rights indirectly and avoiding constitutional responsibilities. The doctrine can provide lessons for China."