梁 艺：政府信息公开中“内部管理信息”的判定
一定影响则不可归入其中。具有代表性的表现即对外招聘、遴选、资格评定等与外部相关的人事信息
被排除在内部管理信息的范围之外。
2. 日常工作与公共利益无涉。虽然现有规范对内部管理事项有一定的列举为例，但毕竟无法穷尽实践中可能出现的情形。在上述列举的事项中，均指无涉公共利益的例行日常工作事项。以此为基点，方与“履行职责”产生的政府信息相区分，从而不具备公众监督的必要，得以从保证行政效率、节约成本的角度出发排除在信息公开的范围之外。
3. 例外排除：效力外部化。内部管理事项属于行政机关的“日常工作”范畴，与其“履行职责”产生的信息应当严格区分，无论是人事管理、设备使用或者内部规章制度，其效力一般仅限于行政机关内部。如果出现“效力外部化”的例外情形，则不在豁免公开之列。
对此《浙江省政府信息公开暂行办法》第12条的规定有一定的参考价值：“属于行政机关之间和行政机关内部行文的请示、报告、批复、会议纪要、抄告单等文件和资料，不作为行政管理依据的，可以不予公开。”暂且不论以上规定中的列举事项是否准确，但其表述出的另一层意思应予关注：即便属于内部行文的文件材料，如果成为行政管理依据，则不具备得以豁免公开的“内部性”。结合前述针对“不具备外部效力”的考察，其作为内部管理信息的必要而不充分的条件，可以作为判定时的辅助标准予以适用。
4. 指导原则：把握豁免事项逐渐减少的趋势。应当明确的是，内部管理信息的限制公开在《条例》促进公开的背景下，系作为一种例外而存在。在上述关于人事、财务信息的《人力资源意见》、《工作要点通知》中明显表现出原本被认为属于“内部”的信息也走向“解禁”的状态。在目前仍未有对内部管理信息豁免公开予以明确解释的法规范的前提下，以公开为原则，谨慎对待内部管理信息的扩张，对于促进透明政府大有裨益。
（四）与过程性信息的区别
回到之前提出的两类信息相区分的问题，其实明确了内部管理事务作为内容标准对内部管理信息进行判定的相对合理性；那么内部管理信息与过程性信息的区别问题，也迎刃而解了。《意见》对过程性信息的表述是“处于讨论、研究或者审查中的过程性信息”，过程性信息之所以限制公开，因其尚处在不确定的决策过程中，属于一种“未制成”信息，①所以对过程性信息判定的主要标准是“阶段性”。而《意见》对内部管理信息的限定为“日常工作”，核心在于内部管理信息涉及内容的“内部性”。故综合而言，过程性信息的本质为“时间上的阶段性”，通过避免公开未成熟的行政决策，以减少公众对行政过程不必要的误读，同时保证在决策过程中参与各方不受影响的意见交流；而内部管理信息则是“事务上的内部性”，属于行政机关琐碎例行的内部管理事务，不具备因公共利益而受公众监督的需要，从适当减轻行政负担的角度出发而予以豁免公开；这两类信息豁免公开的目的彼此不同，其所能涵射的范围也各自有限。
四、结语例外条款的设计是信息公开制度中至关重要的核心部分。目前《条例》第8、14条的规定并不尽如人意，尤其是“三安全一稳定”的表述具有高度的模糊性与可解释的空间；这样的规范设计表面上看来起来限制公开事项的数量并不多，但却能够起到“兜底”的作用，使得行政机关在信息公开时以并不充分的说理拒绝相对人的申请。
就此而言，《意见》对不予公开事项的拓展，客观上丰满了信息公开例外条款，起着制度细化的作用；但这种拓展不能是恣意的、随心所欲的。如果不经谨慎推敲就抛出一项限制公开事由，也许不过是再创设了一个可以随意填充的新“口袋”而已；从至今过程性信息、内部管理信息豁免公开的司法实践来看，这种担心并不多余。
① 参见杨登峰：《论过程性信息的本质》，载《法学家》2013年第3期。
127
行政法学研究2015 年第 1 期
Judgment of ‘Internal Management Information’
in Government Information Publicity
LIANG Yi
(Guanghua Law School of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310008)
Abstract: After the General Office of the State Council setting the rule of making internal management information as an exemption in government information publicity in the Opinions on Government Information Publicity upon Application Work, separate case is made by the court in responding to the judgment of internal management information. By sorting those cases, it can be found that four aspects are mostly concentrated by judges during the review, namely, the subject, the content, the procedure, and the effect, and meanwhile the standard of ‘lacking external effect’ is usually the main consideration in judging the ‘internal management information’ by the court. However, the analysis of current norms shows different result, i.e. the ‘internality’ of information content is the core of internal management information, which means the internal management affairs belonging to ‘daily work’, except from carrying out its duty. Meanwhile, departmental and local information publicity specifications also conclude some typical types of internal management information in ways of enumeration, such as personnel information, equipment management information, and internal regulations. Comparably speaking, in order to defining internal management information, the standard of ‘internal affairs’ is superior to ‘lacking of external effect’, matching more with the legislative intent and current regulatory system.
Key Words: Government Information; Government Information Publicity; Internal Management Information; Process Information（责任编辑： 王青斌）≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄≈┄（上接第81页）
Judicial Regulation of Campaign-style Law Enforcement and Effective State Governance
CHENG Hu
(Administrative Tribunal of Beijing Higher People's Court, Beijing, 100022)Abstract: In China’s long state governance process, being as an important component of the state governance logic, the campaign-style governance and law enforcement continuously exist and recur in particular stages in a certain way, which are totally inconsistent with the rule of law spirit, leading to a direct impact on the normal rule of law order. Consequently, in the great process of rule of law promotion and a socialist country ruled by law construction, deep reflection must be taken on the above state governance logic, in order to control it within a limited range by introducing timely the judicial review mechanism. In such judicial review, some major issues should be faced and solved directly, such as the legal solution of social public problems, the legitimacy review of public policies and judicial response to heavy illegal administrative acts. In the promotion of state governance system modernization, to reform the campaign-style law enforcement, the following work should be done, i.e. the legislative harmonization should be strengthened, the administrative decision legalization should be improved, and the people’s court exercising judicial power independently should be guaranteed, as well as the positive interaction among the government, the market and the society should be shaped, etc.
Key Words: Campaign-style Law Enforcement: Judicial Review; State Governance; Modernization
（责任编辑：曹 鎏）
128