Comparative Study of Administration Executive System of Macao and Mainland China ABSTRACT Administrative Authority exercising public authority, the executive relative to the implementation of a money payment, limit certain acts or omission, from the administrative action made until content, only clearly the rights and obligations, but the final aim of administrative action is to achieve its contents. Legislators generally recognized three categories of implementation of the target: execution to pay money, deliverables, obligations. Macao's Executive administrative enforcement system included as apart of administrative procedures, reflected in the implementation of the Self-implemented, deliverables and obligations in the implementation, to act by the authorities since the implementation of the administrative organ has two identities, firstly administrative organ, secondary enforcement authorities, executive pay money shall be handed over to the other organs. Mainland China's administrative enforcement system, is Justice-led model, the principle of apply to Court, or according to the law authorities to enforce the exception; The Bill to preserve the same principle, with the universal enforcement of the right, such as compulsory allocation, forced sale of property, etc., by law specifically authorized administrative organs, administrative enforcement of the Chinese mainland has its own characteristics. On the allocation of executive rights, the Macao's Based model, executive on its own execution, although the implementation of the payment of money to be transferred to another department, but the sector is still part of the executive; and the Mainland China adopts a "Application Court implementation of the principle", the executive for the exception, "the Justice-led", We believe that administrative decisions execution by the judiciary, it could easily lead to confusion of roles, also tends to delay the administrative efficiency. Macau Administrative Enforcement only remain in the general provisions of the controversial "Code of Tax Implementation" the implementation of the application, other purpose of the substantive rights and enforcement procedures could pot be clearly defined, compared to the Mainland China to be implementation specific legislation, it seems better reflect its procedures. This paper going to compare the Administrative Enforcement of comparison Macao and Mainland China,from the perspective of comparative jurisprudence in Civil Law with the different legal system(one country two system)in the different provisions so as to take to review the existing system strengths less than. Keywords: Administrative Enforcement Based Model Self-implemented Justice-led Mode

澳門與内地行政執行制度比較研究 摘要 行政主體行使公權力，對行政相對人實施一金錢给付或限制一定作爲或不作爲義務時，從行政行爲的作出到内容實现之前的階段，只是明確了權利和義務，然而行政主體作出行政行為的最終目的是實现其内容。立法者普遍確認了三類執行標的：金钱給付義務之執行、交付特定物義務之執行及作爲或不作為義務之執行。 澳門将行政强制執行列作行政程序中的一環節，體現在行政機關的自力執行，在交付特定物義務之執行及作或不作為義務之執行，由作出行爲的機關自爲執行，该行政機關具有二個身份，一係作出行爲之機關，二係執行機關；而金錢給付義務之執行，則须交由另一機關進行。 中國内地的行政强制執行制度，目前實行的是司法主導型的行政強制執行模式，以申請人民法院强制執行爲原则，法律明確授權行政機關自行強制執行爲例外；《行政强制法(草案)》維持以申請人民法院的强制執行爲原则，以行政機關自行强制软行爲例外，對带有普遍性的强制執行權，如强制劃撥、強制拍賣財產等，由法律特别授權行政機關執行，使中國内地行政强制執行具有自己的特點。 就强制執行權的分配，澳門係採取行政本位的模式，由行政機關自行執行，雖然就支付金錢之執行須移送另一部門執行，但該部門仍屬行政機關的一部分；而中國内地採取以「申請法院執行原則，行政機關為例外」的司法主導模式，筆者認為行政決定由司法機關執行，易造成行政司法鱼色混淆，亦容易使行政效率拖延。 澳門行政強制執行現階段僅停留在概括性的規定，備受争議的《税務執行法典》的適用以至其他的執行目的的實體利舆執行程序未能加以明確的規定，相較中國内地已走向行政執行的具體立法，似更能體現程序化。 本文係透過比較澳門與中國内地行政強制執行的比較，從法理學的角度比較同在大陸法系中的不同法建制(一國兩制)中的不同規定，從而以取長處來檢討既有體系中的不足。 關鍵字:行政强制執行，自力執行，行政本位模式，司法主導模式