法治一体建设视域中的行政机关负责人出庭应诉

作为一项极具中国本土特色的实践探索，行政机关负责人出庭应诉在24年间经历了依托文件推动的初创期、制度正式入法的生长期和司法解释实施的拓展期三个阶段。置身全面推进依法治国的新时代，行政机关负责人出庭应诉的制度功能应当得到全新阐释。在法治国家、法治政府、法治社会一体建设的视域中，行政机关负责人出庭应诉具有以官员守法带动全民守法、以官民沟通促进实质化解、以个案处理实现诉源治理的时代价值，最高人民法院公布的典型案例为此提供了有力佐证。遵循法治政府建设要率先取得突破、带动法治 社会建设的法治发展逻辑，应从必须出庭案件范围划定中的司法裁量、实质性解决行政争议取向的应诉表现和负责人出庭应诉实际效果的公开评价三个方面进一步予以完善。

The Head of Administrative Organ Appearing in Court to Respond to Lawsuits in the Perspective of Integrated Construction of the Rule of law

As a practical exploration with the Chinese local characteristics, the head of administrative organ appearing in court to respond to lawsuits has experienced three stages in the past 24 years: the initial stage driven by documents, the growth stage of the system being formally incorporated into the law and the expansion stage of the implementation of judicial interpretation. In the new era of comprehensively promoting the rule of law, the institutional function of the head of administrative organ appearing in court to respond to lawsuits should be completely explained. In view of the integrated construction of a country under the rule of law, a government under the rule of law and a society under the rule of law, the head of administrative organ appearing in court to respond to lawsuits has the value of the times that the universal observance of law is driven by law-abiding officials, substantive resolution is promoted through communication between officials and people and the governance of litigation source is realized through individual cases handled. The typical cases published by the Supreme People's Court provide strong evidence for this. Following the development logic of the rule of law that the construction of a government under the rule of law should take the lead in making a breakthrough and driving the construction of a society under the rule of law, improvement is necessary in three aspects: the judicial discretion in the delimitation of the scope of cases that must appear in court, the response performance of the orientation of substantive settlement of administrative disputes, and the public evaluation of the actual effect of the person in charge to appear in court.