Administrative Review of the UK and Its Inspirations: On a New Path for the Reform of Administrative Reconsideration of China

Weizhou ZHANG

Abstract


In the Chinese academia of administrative law, it is widely held that tribunal of the UK is equivalent to administrative reconsideration of China. A judicialization reform of administrative reconsideration of China, therefore, was launched based on the judicialization of tribunal of the UK. After examining the administrative dispute resolution system of the UK, this article suggests that what is equivalent to administrative reconsideration of China is administrative review of the UK, instead of its tribunal. The judicialization of tribunal, therefore, fails to provide any support for the judicialization reform of administrative reconsideration of China from the perspective of comparative law. On the contrary, administrative review is more exemplary for its non-judicial character. It resolves most of the straightforward disputes at low cost, leaving the ordinary disputes to tribunal and the most complex disputes to administrative court. Thus, the administrative dispute resolution system of the UK, which consists of the three parts above, embodies the concept of proportionate dispute resolution. Especially, administrative review allows most of the disputes to be resolved within the administrative agencies, facilitating the establishment of feedback mechanism to improve the original administrative service and to reduce the total number of administrative disputes. As a result, administrative review also embodies the ideas of “right first time” and learning organization, which are the guidelines for administrative reforms in many countries. It is inspiring for China that the judicialization approach is not the only path to reform administrative reconsideration. As administrative review of the UK, supplemented by the introduction of administrative merits to the spheres where administrative disputes are commonly seen, a non-judicialization reform of administrative reconsideration can be considered as well to fulfil the role of administrative reconsideration as the “main channel of administrative dispute resolution” in China.


Keywords


Administrative reconsideration; Administrative review; Tribunal; Judicialization reform of administrative reconsideration

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bolt, D. (2016). An inspection of the administrative review processes introduced following the 2014 Immigration Act (September-December 2015). Retrieved from Http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICIBI-report-on-Admin-Reviews-May-2016.pdf

Cane, P. (2009). Administrative tribunals and adjudication. Hart Publishing.

Cane, P. (2011). Administrative law. Oxford University Press.

Cowan, D., & Halliday, S. (2003). The appeal of internal review: Law, administrative Justice, and the emergence of disputes. Hart Publishing.

Elliot, M., & Thomas, R. (2012). Tribunal justice and proportionate dispute resolution. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(2), 297-324.

Gao, Q. W. (2019). Administrative justice and the principle of proportionate resolution: Experiences and issues of the British tribunals. Journal of Comparative Law, (03), 116-130.

Harris, M., & Partington, M. (1999). Administrative justice in the 21st century. Hart Publishing.

He, H. B. (2016). The administrative litigation law. Law Press.

HMRC. (2013). HMRC reviews and appeals (2012-2013). Retrieved from Https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319322/131202_Reviews_and_Appeals_Statistics_2012-13.pdf.

HMRC. (2014). HMRC reviews and appeals (2013-2014). Retrieved from Https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322801/140610_Reviews_and_Appeals_MI_2013-14_final.pdf

Liang, F. Y. (2013). Supplementary discussion on judicialization of administrative reconsideration. Journal of National Prosecutors College, 21(06), 83-90.

Liu, F. (2010). German administrative litigation in change: Problems, measures, and prospects. Administrative Law Review, 13(00), 183-198.

Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2016). Report on field study of administrative reconsideration. Administrative Law Review, (05), 50-62.

Ma, C. (2020). Reflection on “judicialization” of administrative review under “main Channel” position. Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law, 35(06), 37-45.

Office of the Inspector General. (2021). Fiscal year 2021 inspector general’s statement on the social security administration’s major management and performance challenges.
(OIG Publication No. A-02-20-50976). Retrieved from Https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-02-20-50976.pdf

Sainsbury, R. (1994). Internal reviews and the weakening of social security claimants’ rights of appeal. In G. Richardson & H. Genn (Eds.), Administrative law and government action. (pp.287-308). Clarendon Press.

Thomas, R. (2015). Administrative justice, better decisions, and organizational learning. Retrieved from Http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477969.

Thomas, R. (2016, July 21-22). Administrative review and tribunals. [Conference session]. International Symposium on Administrative Reconsideration, Beijing, China.

Wang, J. X. (2013). Newest evolution of Britain’s administrative tribunal system. Administrative Law Review, (04), 115-123.

Wang, W. H. (2021). The main channel of solution of administrative disputes and the revision of administrative reconsideration system. Studies in Law and Business, 38(05), 19-32.

Yan, Y. Q. (2018). Higher efficiency but not more fairness: Direction of reformation of administrative reconsideration. Journal of Fujian Administration Institute, (05), 65-75

Yang, H. K., & Zhu, H. S. (2014). Idea adjustment and system improvement of administrative reconsideration. Law Review, 32(04), 18-32.

Yu, L. Y. (2013). On the revision of administrative law. Tsinghua University Law Journal, 7(04), 61-72.

Zhou, H. H. (2004). Judicialization of administrative reconsideration. Global Law Review, (01), 5-6.

Zhou, H. H. (2004). Judicialized reform of administrative reconsideration of China. Chinese Journal of Law, (02), 46-147.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/12426

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Canadian Social Science

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Share us to:   


Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
  • We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; css@cscanada.net; css@cscanada.org

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 CANADIAN SOCIAL SCIENCE Editorial Office 

Address1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.

Website: Http://www.cscanada.net Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mailcss@cscanada.net, css@cscanada.org

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture