轉向保護規範理論──實際影響說的斷裂還是延續?

行政訴訟以往通行的實際影響說寬泛地承認合法權益，重點關注因果關係，導致原告資格判斷標準並不穩定。為了提升法的安定性，最高人民法院引入保護規範理論意圖取代實際影響說。與德國法不同，我國司法實踐理解的保護規範理論既可以判斷合法權益或公權利，也能用來解釋因果關係，具有高度的技術性。保護規範理論以法規範作為論證基準，實現了原告資格判斷方法從事實出髮型到規範出髮型的轉變。這種意義上的保護規範理論仍處於實際影響說的框架內，實際上優化而非替代了實際影響說。我國應在保留實際影響說的基礎上，吸收保護規範理論作為認定合法權益或因果關係的工具。在判斷行政訴訟原告資格時，應關注行政法規範是否具有保護私人利益的目的，並通過輔助論證工具提升保護規範理論適用的可靠性。

The prevailing practical impact doctrine in administrative litigation has broadly recognized lawful rights and interests while focusing on causal relationships, resulting in an unstable criterion for determining plaintiff standing. To enhance legal certainty, the Supreme People's Court has introduced the protective norm theory with the intent to replace the practical impact doctrine. Different from its application in German law, the protective norm theory as understood in China's judicial practice can be used both to identify lawful rights and interests or subjective public rights and to interpret causal relationships, thereby rendering it highly technical. Taking legal norms as its benchmark for argumentation, the protective norm theory has transformed the method of determining plaintiff standing from a fact-oriented approach to a norm-oriented approach. In this sense, the protective norm theory still operates within the framework of the practical impact doctrine, effectively optimizing rather than replacing it. China should retain the practical impact doctrine while incorporating the protective norm theory as a tool for identifying lawful rights and interests or causation relationships. When determining plaintiff standing in administrative litigation, courts should examine whether administrative legal norms are intended to protect private interests and enhance the reliability of applying the protective norm theory through auxiliary argumentative tools.