国务院批转外国投资管理委员会、邮电部关于禁止各单位以及外商在我境内办理速递文件业务的请示的通知(附英文)
国务院
国务院批转外国投资管理委员会、邮电部关于禁止各单位以及外商在我境内办理速递文件业务的请示的通知(附英文)
国务院
国务院同意外国投资管理委员会、邮电部《关于禁止各单位以及外商在我境内办理速递文件业务的请示》。现批转给你们,望按照执行。
关于禁止各单位以及外商在我境内办理速递文件业务的请示
国际特快传递业务(有的国家和地区称为速递文件业务),是最近十几年国际间兴起的一种新的邮政业务。这项特快专递业务是从寄件人手中收寄特快专递邮件后,按事先预定的航班发运,途中运输紧密衔接,到寄达邮局后由专门人员立即投送收件人。这项业务的特点是交寄方便、运
输迅速、按时投递、保证安全,整个邮递过程比一航航空邮件快得较多,收费比一般航空邮件较高。办好这项业务既能为用户提供良好的服务,又可增加企业收入。我国邮政自一九八O年七月十五日后,已同世界上十几个国家开办了特快专递邮件业务。随着我国民经济的发展,我国邮政与
各国邮政间的特快专递邮件业务也将随之发展起来。
一九八O年四、五月间,香港敦豪公司与广东省广州市邮局商办速递文件业务。同年八、九月间,美国敦豪公司又同我外贸部咨询与技术服务公司商办速递文件业务。他们这种要求,实际上就是国外私人企业在我国领土上设立办理国际邮件业务的“邮局”。他们不仅要求我国用户按照
其有关规章办理,而且要由该公司自行制订收费标准,我邮政无权过问。这不仅有损于我国主权、邮政经营管理权和经济利益,也将会造成我国邮政通信管理上的混乱。因此,不能允许国外任何私人企业在我国经营邮政通信和速递文件业务。对此,邮电部商得外国投资管理委员会的同意,
分别于一九八O年七月二十三日、九月十二日告知广东省邮电管理局和外贸部,以邮政通信包括信函、印刷品、文件资料的进出口传递业务应统由邮电部邮政总局管理和办理为由予以制止。
一九八O年十月下旬,美国艾德曼公司开始在北京国际俱乐部私自办理速递文件业务。艾德曼公司现在国际俱乐部租有办公室,并从北京市友谊商业服务公司雇用工作人员一人,负责办理速递文件业务的具体投递等事宜。到目前为止已由北京民航局收到自巴黎、香港和美国发来的速递
文件数件,由该公司雇用的工作人员送投收件人。外国私人公司来我国争办特快专递邮件业务的目的,是为了夺揽我国和世界各国或地区的来往速递文件业务。美国敦豪公司的一名顾问曾称,敦豪公司急于来中国开办速递文件业务,主要是想争个最先来中国的资格,打算先赔三至四年钱,
但以后会赚大钱。我们认为,对于美国艾德曼公司在北京私办速递文件业务的行为,应予以制止。
目前,我国邮政法尚未制订出来,国内不少单位尚不了解我国邮政是统一经营管理的。为了今后能更有效地维护我国邮政统一,禁止我国除邮政部门外的任何单位、个人以及外商在我国境内擅自开办速递文件业务,有必要重申,凡在我国境内以及我国与外国间开办的邮政业务,包括信
函、印刷品、文件资料的进出口传递业务以及速递文件业务,均由邮电部统一管理和办理,并统一制订资费标准和各种规章制度。其他机关、企业或个人不得在国内经营速递文件业务,尤其不应允许外国私商来我国插手经营此项业务。
以上如无不妥,请批转各地区、各部门执行。
CIRCULAR OF THE STATE COUNCIL CONCERNING THE APPROVAL AND TRANS-MISSION OF THE REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONFOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND THE MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ONFORBIDDING ANY UNITS OR FO
REIGN BUSINESSMEN TO ENGAGE IN EXPRESS DELIVERYOF DOCUMENTS
Important Notice: (注意事项)
英文本源自中华人民共和国务院法制局编译, 中国法制出版社出版的《中华人民
共和国涉外法规汇编》(1991年7月版).
当发生歧意时, 应以法律法规颁布单位发布的中文原文为准.
This English document is coming from the "LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNING FOREIGN-RELATED MATTERS" (1991.7)
which is compiled by the Brueau of Legislative Affairs of the State
Council of the People's Republic of China, and is published by the China
Legal System Publishing House.
In case of discrepancy, the original version in Chinese shall prevail.
Whole Document (法规全文)
CIRCULAR OF THE STATE COUNCIL CONCERNING THE APPROVAL AND TRANS-
MISSION OF THE REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION
FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND THE MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ON
FORBIDDING ANY UNITS OR FOREIGN BUSINESSMEN TO ENGAGE IN EXPRESS DELIVERY
OF DOCUMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY
(January 19, 1981)
The State Council has approved the Request for Instructions on Forbidding
Any Units or Foreign Businessmen to Engage in Express Delivery of
Documents in Our Country sent by the Administrative Commission for Foreign
Investment and the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. It is hereby
transmitted to you for implementation.
REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON FORBIDDING ANY UNITS OR FOREIGN BUSINESSMEN TO
ENGAGE IN EXPRESS DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY
International express delivery (also called special delivery of documents
in some countries and regions) is a new postal service emerged in the
world only over 10 years ago. By this postal service, express delivery
mail from the addresser shall be transported with schedule flights,
through closely-link transport means on the way, to the post office at the
destination, where it is immediately delivered to the addressee by hand.
This service is characterized by convenience, speed, timeliness and
safety. The delivery is much faster than ordinary air mail, though the
charge is also higher. Providing express delivery not only offers good
service to customers, but also increases the revenues. Since July 15,
1980, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of our country has
established express delivery with more than a dozen countries in the
world. With the development of our national economy, this service will
further develop between China and other countries in the world.
Sometime in April and May, 1980, DHL-SINOTRANS Ltd. In Hong Kong held
discussion with the Guangzhou Municipal Post Office in Guangdong Province
about the express delivery service. In August and September the same year,
Dunhao Company in the United States also held discussions with the
Consultation and Technical Service Company of the Ministry of Foreign
Trade for the same purpose. They were, in fact, asking for the
establishment of "a post office" by foreign private enterprises in order
to handle international mails in the Chinese territory. According to their
plan, the Chinese Customers should observe their relevant regulations and,
moreover, they would fix their own charge standards, in which our postal
service has no right to intervene. This would not only infringe upon our
sovereignty, right of postal management and administration and economic
interests, but also cause disorder in the administration of post and
communications in our country. Therefore, no foreign private enterprises
are allowed to engage in the business of postal communication and express
delivery of documents. In this connection, the Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications, with the agreement of the Administrative Commission
for Foreign Investment, notified the Administration for Postal Affairs of
Guangdong Province and the Ministry of Foreign Trade on July 23, 1980 and
September 12, 1980 respectively that they must stop their negotiations
with the relevant companies on the ground that the delivery of letters,
printed matters, documents and materials must all be administered and
managed by the General Post Office of the Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications.
In late October, 1980, American ALTMAN Co. of the United States started
the service of express delivery of documents at the International Club in
Beijing without authorization. American ALTMAN Co. has rented an office
from the club and hired a staff member from the Friendship Commercial
Services Company of Beijing Municipality in charge of the actual business.
Up to now, several documents have arrived at the Beijing Civil Aviation
Administration by special delivery from Paris, Hong Kong and the United
States and have been delivered to the addressees by the employee. The
purpose of the foreign private enterprises in vying for express delivery
service in China is to seize the business of express delivery of documents
between China and other countries and regions in the world. A consultant
of DHL-SINOTRANS Ltd. in the United States once said that the company was
eager to start the business of express delivery in China, mainly because
it wanted to be the first of such companies; it was ready to lose money on
the venture for first three to four years, but it expected to make big
money later. We hold that American ALTMAN Co.'s unauthorized business in
Beijing mentioned above must be stopped. At present, a law for postal
service has not been formulated in China and many units do not know that
the postal service in China is under unified management and
administration. In order to protect the unification of our postal service
more effectively in the future and forbid any enterprises or individuals
outside the postal department and any foreign businessmen to start the
business of special delivery of documents in China without authorization,
it is necessary to reiterate that any postal service which is run within
China or jointly run with other countries, including the inward or outward
delivery of letters, printed matter, documents and materials and special
delivery of documents, must be administered and managed in a unified way
by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, which is responsible for
formulation of unified postal charges and various rules and regulations.
Other organs, enterprises or individuals may not engage in the business of
express delivery of documents in China. Foreign private businessmen in
particular shall not be allowed to have a hand in this line of business.
If nothing is inappropriate, it is requested that the above be approved
and transmitted to all the localities and departments for implementation.
1981年1月19日
城管公物警察权之分解研究:交通运输
刘建昆
国家对交通运输的管理,实际上是随着道路公物的发展而发展出来的。道路或者公路,是行政法—公物法理论上的典型公物。与其他国家一样,我国的《公路法》同样也是公物立法的范本。尽管《公路法》并没有排除在城市的适用,但是由于实际上负责的行政机关不同,城市道路是由城市建设部门来管理、养护和保护的。城管行使交通运输管理方面的有关处罚权,除了北京尚不多见。城管是城市公物警察权的主要掌握者,城市交通既然可以进入相对集中执法的范围,必然的与公物有所联系。
城市道路的目前的管理模式深刻的体现出城乡二元结构对我国法律管理制度的冲击。事实上,城管对城市道路的警察权保护,其本质与交通部门对公路的保护是一样的,都属于公物警察权,但是由于城市管理中有自己的的一些特性,加之《城市道路管理条例》立法严重滞后,导致城管部门不得不东拼西凑自己的职权,有时候借用公安交警部门的权力,有时候借用交通部门法规,有时候求助城市容貌或者环境卫生法规。
即便是运输管理目前附着了大量其他的利益管理,诸如线路利益、公众人身安全,交通秩序等,但是,道路公物本身的警察权保护,仍然是最基础的环节。正因为如此,我国台湾地区的《大众捷运法》罚则的第一条仍然是公物警察权条款:“擅自占用或破坏大众捷运系统用地、车辆或其他设施者,除涉及刑责应依法移送侦办外,该大众捷运系统工程建设或营运机构,应通知行为人或其雇用人偿还修复费用或依法赔偿。”
北京城管对交通运输的管理,尚不是最直接的关于侵占和破坏公物的警察权条款,而是一种与基于公路公物利用秩序许可相联系的处罚权。按照我国行政法学者范扬的公物法理论,关于公物的利用是这样的情形:
“普通使用,即依普通方法,并于普通范围,而为公物使用之谓。其使用方法,或为行政主体所定,或依社会习惯定之。”“特别使用,乃特定人依特别方法,并越普通范围,而为公物使用之谓。此种使用,须得该管官公署之认许,私人不得任意为之。”
特别使用之一为“临时的特别使用”,虽然需要一定的许可,但是实际上与普通使用无异。例如经过批准在道路上举办宣传活动之类。
特别使用之二为“继续的特别适用”又叫独占使用,是为特定人设定使用权,公法上的独占使用一般指或对煤气或地下铁道公司,许其埋藏气管,筑设隧道等例。
道路公物上的许可大致可以分为三种类型:
第一,基于公物管理权,是当然可以设置许可的。在道路利用中,道路营运权,其实也是一种特别使用。对道路营运企业的许可,是我国在民国时期就有的一种制度。这种许可的本质,就是基于公物管理权,以行政许可的形式,为相对人创设一种特别利用道路公物进行可获运输的的权利。既然需要行政许可,那么未经许可的擅自行为,本身已经构成对国家行政许可制度的冲击,而对未经公物管理权许可的这些擅自行为的取缔,是否构成公物警察权的内容?还缺乏更为深入的探讨,但是无论如何,我们不应该怀疑这是与城市道路公物相关的一种公物上的权力。
道路营运许可,不但与道路使用许可制度相关的,而且往往与“行政事业性收费”相联系。一百多年前日本学者在《大清行政法》一书中,就提到类似规费的“手数料”,其中有一种“使用料”,即对营造物(含公物和公营造物法人)利用中的“行政事业性收费”。行政收费,也可以看做一种简化了手续的公物利用中的行政许可。袁裕来律师博文《斯伟江细说在美国吃停车罚单经历》提到美国的“CITY STICK”想来也就是关于公物利用收取行政规费的东东。
第二,道路公物之上尚有交通安全警察权,这是一种一般秩序警察。实际上,公安交警历史上,就是从交通管理部门分化出去的一个警种。公安交警的职权有时候与公物警察权完全无关,比如惩治车辆在道路上逆行,但是危害了交通安全秩序。但也有时候也涉及公物的利用关系,比如交通管制等,但是总的说来不是以道路本身的保护为职责的。同样,公安交警部门有关的许可权,尽管有时也具有公物利用许可的效果,但也不能视为是公物法上的利用许可。
第三,法律基于公物警察权也可能设置某种许可。范扬《行政法总论》中还指出:“尚有警察上许可使用一种。警察上为防遏危害计,对于公物之使用,每设有特别取缔规定。或对有害公物或有害公众使用之使用,绝对加以禁止;或对有害公众使用之虞之使用,保留许可而禁止之。后之场合,若得警察上之许可,仍得适法而为使用。但属警察上许可使用之场合,其危害程度,必属轻微,在私人原得自由使用,特为防止危害起见,设以制限,令受特别许可,俾警察上得以审查监视而已。故此时其使用许可,不过回复私人固有之自由,而非赋予新之权能,从而其许可与否,非属官署自由裁量,与一般之警察许可无异。”可见这种基于公物警察权的行政许可,与前述基于公物管理权的许可、基于交通安全的许可尚有着细微的不同,如何能做出更为细致和科学的区分呢?这是摆在公物法面前的另一个值得重视问题。更为根本的问题则是,在道路公物执法中,“三权并立”的情况(交警,交通,城管)到底有没有科学和必要性呢?
二○○九年九月二十八日