公安机关参与行政诉讼应注意的问题

行政诉讼所确立保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益不受侵犯的目的,与公安机关的根本宗旨是完全一致的。为了确保公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益,公安行政行为必须接受人民法院的监督。熟悉和掌握行政诉讼规则对于我们依法办案、文明办案,提高办案效率和质量非常必要。本人认为,公安机关在收到人民法院送达的起诉状副本后,应从程序上充分行使诉讼权,从实体上准确把握规定,做透庭审过程细节三方面做好功课,为诉讼打下良好的基础。     

论违法行政行为的转换

违法行政行为转换是以公共利益最大化为基础的一种制度.它追求行政经济、效率与法的安定,具有撤销重作等制度不可替代之功能.转换的条件主要是违法行为与拟转换行政行为具有相同的目的,且违法行为中包含了拟转换行为的合法要件.转换的适用对象,主要包括违反级别管辖权的行政行为、部分适用法律错误的行政行为、部分事实认定错误的行政行为.值我国即将修改行政诉讼法与行政复议法之际,应考虑将违法行政行为转换制度明确立法,并详细规定其适用条件.     

Administrative Justice in the Wake of I,Daniel Blake

This article argues that Ken Loach's film, I, Daniel Blake, invites deep reflection on the relationship between the individual and the state, and, more particularly, on the role of administrative justice in restoring a re‐imagined sense of citizenship. Drawing on earlier debates from the 1950s, as well as on more recent advocacy of the ‘connected society’, the article proposes that to meet such an ambition, administrative justice must be recognised as an overarching set of principles and values, rooted in a framework of human rights and with a reinvigorated public‐sector ombud‐institution at its centre. In this way, administrative justice might serve as an effective and restorative counterweight to more legalistic options for responding to public grievance, whether the result of routine encounters with the state or of a major breakdown in trust, such as that occasioned by ‘Grenfell Tower’.     

Low‐trust bureaucracy: Understanding the Mexican bureaucratic experience

Latin American bureaucracies are notorious for their inefficiency and opacity, yet there is very little empirical research done on what exactly constitutes the “bureaucratic experience” for citizens and what the costs of bureaucratic dysfunction are. To improve our understanding of this topic, 5 cases of Mexican citizens' encounters with public bureaucracies are used to develop the notion of “low‐trust bureaucracy”: public organisations in which access to services is unreliable and the levels of control towards both citizens and bureaucrats are excessive. This bottom‐up analysis of administrative practices contributes to our understanding of the ineffectiveness of government programmes and services, but also of how bureaucracies in developing countries amplify social inequality rather than function as a social equaliser. Furthermore, this article adds new insights to the existing understanding of administrative burdens as a result of either political tactics or mere benign neglect. The data presented here suggest that structural and intractable characteristics of the broader administrative context, such as authoritarian legacies, can produce behavioural patterns that shift bureaucratic attention away from a fair and efficient service provision.     

行政许可范围设定制度的法理解读——以政治国家与市民社会关系为分析视角

理性化的行政许可范围的设定，应当以市民社会与政治国家的良性互动为目标，从克服市民社会不自足性出发，充分尊重市民社会的独立性，确立公共利益优位的理念，以私权保障为其基本价值取向。我国行政许可法所确立的行政许可范围设定制度正是契合了上述基本要求，对中国此后的市场经济和民主政治建设必将起到巨大的推动作用。     

完善民事行政检察监督的有关立法建议

构建和谐社会是当今时代发展的主旋律,社会的和谐与否,执法部门是否正确执法起着至关重要的作用。有一句至理名言＂权利失去监督必将产生腐败＂,如果执法部门的执法活动得不到有效监督的话,就难免会产生错案,就难免会侵害人民群众的利益,再如果权利受到侵害后得不到有效救济的话,就很容易引发上访事件,社会就不会稳定,更谈不上和谐。但我国目前的法律状况很难保证监督的有效性,因此,笔者建议立法机关尽快立法,以实现监督的有效性。     

行政即时强制概念辨析

十一届人大二次会议确定要在2010年前完善中国特色社会主义法制系统建设，《行政强制法》等法律的制定与颁布已呼之欲出。但对于行政强制的概念称谓还有着不少争论，本文意在对行政即时强制的概念作一较为详尽的剖析，首先对“即时”进行溯源与界定，再对“强制”提出异议，然后明确“行政”的边界，从而确定行政即时强制的内涵与外延。     

浅议明清讼学对地方司法审判的双重影响

明清讼学传播，一方面使案件面貌越来越稀奇复杂，难以捉摸，官方稍有出入即可能铸成大错，给司法审判官吏带来极大的压力，另一方面民众在讼学熏陶之下，也越来越善于利用诉讼规则为自己谋求利益；虽然不能够与官方分庭抗礼，但对官吏独断专行无疑产生一种抑制力，并促使地方官吏在审判实践中更加审慎地分析处理讼事，在日益复杂的诉讼形势下不断完善诉讼规则，从而缓慢地矫治整个司法审判机制，从反面促进了传统司法制度的改革完善。     

检察公益“两诉”衔接机制探析——以“检察公益诉讼解释”的完善为切入

民事公益诉讼与行政公益诉讼在内容和功能上大量重叠,但又各自具有不可替代的独特部分,故二者既不能当然并立,也不能绝对排斥,而应通过衔接机制在避免重复的情况下形成“互补”关系。为此,“检察公益诉讼解释”应增加“两诉衔接”一章,从诉前、诉中和诉后三阶段作出相应规定。     

Public‐Private Arbitration and the Public Interest under English Law

Together with the increase in the number of public‐private contracts, recent years have seen a marked proliferation in public‐private arbitrations. This article explores the public interest implications which may arise in such arbitrations and examines how public‐private arbitration is treated under English law. We argue that, due to the lack of a developed administrative law sphere in England and the historical development of arbitration as an exclusively private mode of dispute resolution, the current legal framework of arbitration in England has developed around the private law paradigm of a commercial dispute involving private actors. This private law paradigm results in a conceptual and legal void in respect of how public interest is accounted for, and protected, in arbitrations involving public bodies under English law. Therefore, we suggest that English arbitration law needs to be amended to adequately protect the private interest in public‐private arbitration.