Research on Administrative Responsibility Issues

Author: Yang Jiejun
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-04-01
Features: The theoretical research on administrative responsibility should neither be a mechanical annotation of positive law nor a blind application of foreign theories. It should be grounded in reality but also transcend institutional reality, serving as an elevated and comprehensive interpretation and innovation of real-world materials. This collection is an assembly of seven master's theses supervised by the author. The selection of these seven papers and their compilation into a collection stems from their shared focus on the theme of administrative responsibility, possessing an inherent systematic structure and interconnectedness. The article "An Economic Analysis of the Administrative Tort Liability System" can be seen as an attempt to transform research methods in administrative law. The basic approach of the article "Research on Administrative Responsibility Subjects and Types of Administrative Responsibility" lies in bridging the logical gap between administrative subject theory and administrative responsibility subject theory. Under existing theories and systems, the dualization of responsibility subjects and the unification of administrative subjects present a logical conflict. A significant gap emerges between administrative subject law and administrative remedy law, leaving the theory of administrative responsibility lacking a solid foundation for development. The two articles "Administrative Contractual Obligations and Responsibilities" and "Research on Administrative Enforcement Responsibility Statements" respectively explore the issues of obligations and responsibilities from the dimensions of external and internal administrative relationships. The article "Administrative Contractual Obligations and Responsibilities" focuses on the contractual obligations and responsibilities between administrative subjects and administrative counterparts. Its basic arguments are as follows: The occurrence of administrative contractual obligations stems from three types of administrative acts: administrative promises, administrative contracts, and administrative agreements. Administrative contractual obligations must be fulfilled, as this is a natural requirement of the principle of good faith in the realm of administrative contracts. The attribution of liability for breach of contract should adopt the strict liability principle. When an administrative contract is invalid, the reliance interests of administrative counterparts should be protected. Valid contractual obligations set by administrative subjects for themselves are equivalent to their statutory obligations. Violations of such contractual obligations constitute a special "administrative illegal act," and thus, breach of contract liability is tantamount to illegal liability. The conclusion is: "Contract is law, breach of contract is illegal." Etc.