On the basis of data obtained from a comprehensive social survey across twenty- eight provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in 2005 （CGSS2005）, we have conducted quantitative empirical research on the dis...On the basis of data obtained from a comprehensive social survey across twenty- eight provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in 2005 （CGSS2005）, we have conducted quantitative empirical research on the distribution of administrative disputes and Chinese citizens’ purposive institutional choices in dealing with such disputes. Our study found that where administrative disputes are concerned, today’s Chinese citizens are by no means apathetic about the law. However, practical constraints mean that some of them resort to other means of dispute resolution than judicial or quasi-judicial procedures. In actuality, a two-track system exists in Chinese citizens’ resolution of administrative disputes; that is, they have the same level of demand for （quasi-） judicial channels and for Party/government channels in the resolution of disputes of this kind. In addition, different social groups show a great variety of preferences in terms of choice of channels for dealing with such disputes. On the basis of empirical research we argue for further reflection on the theory and methodology of this kind of research today and call on theoretical research and institution building to show a genuine understanding of and respect for citizens’ wishes.展开更多
As a new form of authorization with independent legal status, the authorization of experimental administrative reform falls between legislative and administrative authorization. Decisions on authorization of experimen...As a new form of authorization with independent legal status, the authorization of experimental administrative reform falls between legislative and administrative authorization. Decisions on authorization of experimental administrative reform have two aspects, viz., 'the temporary adjustment or temporary suspension of the application of certain provisions of a law' and 'authorizing a given experimenting body to implement this decision.' In essence, the former is the organic combination of two elements: suspending the implementation of a law and formulating a new experimental law;it does not belong under amendment of the law. The latter, on the other hand, is a special legislative authorization similar to administrative franchise. As a method of exercising public power, authorization for experimental administrative reform should follow the procedural requirements laid down in the Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Certain Major Issues concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Law-based Governance of China;further, it may not overstep the bounds of the forms of expression or substantive contents determined by the principles of the modern rule of law.展开更多
文摘On the basis of data obtained from a comprehensive social survey across twenty- eight provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in 2005 （CGSS2005）, we have conducted quantitative empirical research on the distribution of administrative disputes and Chinese citizens’ purposive institutional choices in dealing with such disputes. Our study found that where administrative disputes are concerned, today’s Chinese citizens are by no means apathetic about the law. However, practical constraints mean that some of them resort to other means of dispute resolution than judicial or quasi-judicial procedures. In actuality, a two-track system exists in Chinese citizens’ resolution of administrative disputes; that is, they have the same level of demand for （quasi-） judicial channels and for Party/government channels in the resolution of disputes of this kind. In addition, different social groups show a great variety of preferences in terms of choice of channels for dealing with such disputes. On the basis of empirical research we argue for further reflection on the theory and methodology of this kind of research today and call on theoretical research and institution building to show a genuine understanding of and respect for citizens’ wishes.
文摘As a new form of authorization with independent legal status, the authorization of experimental administrative reform falls between legislative and administrative authorization. Decisions on authorization of experimental administrative reform have two aspects, viz., 'the temporary adjustment or temporary suspension of the application of certain provisions of a law' and 'authorizing a given experimenting body to implement this decision.' In essence, the former is the organic combination of two elements: suspending the implementation of a law and formulating a new experimental law;it does not belong under amendment of the law. The latter, on the other hand, is a special legislative authorization similar to administrative franchise. As a method of exercising public power, authorization for experimental administrative reform should follow the procedural requirements laid down in the Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Certain Major Issues concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Law-based Governance of China;further, it may not overstep the bounds of the forms of expression or substantive contents determined by the principles of the modern rule of law.
