摘要：

宪法权利在何种情况下得以约束私人行为，是中美两国共同的理论课题和现实议题。根据美国联邦最高法院的州行为理论，宪法权利一般仅约束政府行为，但若私人行为与政府行为存在充分关联，前者则有可能被拟制为“州行为”从而受到宪法权利的约束。从该法院的一系列相关案件来看，州行为的认定存在两条基本进路：两段分析法和归类分析法。后者包括四个具体标准：政府影响、公共职能、联合行为和司法执行标准。对于私人行为构成州行为的情形，两段分析法有所遗漏同时限定不足；归类分析法之下的联合行为、司法执行标准也存在逻辑局限。1970年以后，联邦最高法院认定州行为的尺度趋于严格，宪法权利对私人行为的限制范围明显缩小。总体而言，州行为理论一方面有利于维系私人自治、契约自由和市场竞争，另一方面有助于防止政府间接侵犯宪法权利以及规避宪法责任，可以为我国提供镜鉴。

关键词: 宪法权利, 私人行为, 美国联邦最高法院, 州行为理论

Abstract:

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.

Key words: Constitutional Right, Private Conduct, U.S.Supreme Court, State Action Doctrine