Administrative Law Review

The administrative talk fits the era task of social management transformation from ‘response' to ‘prevention', which internalizes the idea of ser vice administration, meeting the requirement of citizens participating into administration. There are both broad and narrow senses of administrative talk and the later one refers to the external talk, i.e. in case of the private party may do or does minor infringements of the law, the administrative subject shall take methods of talk, guidance or warning to suggest the private party to rectify in order to avoid the risk of illegal behavior. As a form of administrative guidance, the administrative talk has its independent value, with a non-power attribute. In practice there are five types of the administrative talk, namely the decision-making type, the dispute coordination type, the illegality warning type, the law enforcement settlement type, and the supervisory punishment type. However, there is the alienation of mandatory and excessive tendencies of the administrative talk, needing to be put into the rule of law track.

Meng Qiang-lon

Administrative law review

Study on Legalization of Administrative Talk

行政谈话的合法化研究

The administrative approval power list is a vital system of administrative approval regulation. However there are still many problems of approval items and power in its construction, such as confused setting basis, unclear list standards and separate list form, needing explicit legal standards. The standards include the legitimacy of both approval items and approval authority setting. The former one should base on articles 12 and 13 whilst the later one articles 14 to 17 of the Administrative License Law.

Wang Ke-we

On Legal Standard of Administrative Approval Power List

关于行政审批权力清单的法律标准

It is not only the ruling party's requirement that the leading cadres practice the rule of law during the new period, but also a fresh perspective of realizing administrative management system innovation that the leading cadres improve their abilities to deepen reform, promote development, resolve conflicts, and maintain stability. The administrative management system innovation is faced with much plight of the rule of law, such as lack of basic legal protection, difficulty to determine the boundary between the formal law and substantial law, the absence of the social environment and so on. The basic way out is to adhere to the innovational dimension of the rule of law. The linear dimension of legal thinking as a constraint requires the abandonment of illegal thinking; The plane dimension of legal thinking as the second constraint requires to keep the thinking of the formal rule of law relatively prior; and the three-dimensional thinking of the rule of law as the third constraint requires the construction of new framework of the administrative management system with legality, rationality, and purposiveness.

Shi Feng-li

Dimension and Plight of the Rule of Law for Administrative Management System Innovation

行政管理体制创新法治的维度与困境

Initiating from local practice, the chief executive pleading in court system was absorbed by the Decision on Amendment of People 's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress promulgated on 2014.11.1, becoming the law. By analysis on 66 legal norms issued in different areas in Zhejiang province, it is found that although ‘enhancing the administration by law' is taken as the common choice by the chief executive pleading in court, the basic system design goes far away from its due value position. Compared to pleading by agents such as lawyers, the chief executive doing it himself aims at providing a platform for dispute coordination and reconciliation in order to facilitate the administrative dispute solution. Therefore it is suggested to construct systematically from aspects of the chief executive, the pleading in court case and related requirement.

Gao Chun-ya

Revaluation and Technical Improvement of Chief Executive Pleading in Court: Analysis on 66 Legal Norms in Zhejiang

法院审理中公司高管抗辩的再评价与技术改进：基于浙江66份裁判文书的分析

Although the alternation judgment of the administrative litigation is no longer used, it has unique value in the fact. It reflects both the attitude to the public power and the response to claims. It denies the effectiveness of improper administrative behaviors and it solves the unsettled right state. It relieves the damaged interests to the maximum and it solves the problem substantially. The improper use of positive influence factors such as ‘the fundamental factor, the comparison factor and the referential factor' will cause unjust administrative penalty. So as for whether to use the alternation judgment, the combination type and order of factors should be taken into consideration, meanwhile the realization path should be followed as ‘respecting the original penalty, calculating the benchmark penalty, and getting the result of penalty, as well as determining the alternation of penalty'.

Zhang Jin

On Alternation Judgment of Administrative Litigation

关于行政诉讼变更判决的研究

On 3 July 2019 a rule that a deadline is deemed to have been met if, before its expiry, a letter was posted at a Polish post office facility of the designated operator in the meaning of the Postal Law Act or at a postal facility of the operator providing the universal postal services in another Member State of the European Union, the Swiss Confederation or a Member State of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) – a party to the European Economic Area Agreement, was introduced into the Polish administrative procedure. Prior to the date of the aforementioned amendment coming into force, it was necessary to post a letter at a Polish post office facility of the designated operator in the meaning of the Postal Law Act in order to be able to state that the deadline was met. The interim provisions introducing the above-mentioned changes stipulated that the regulation in the wording before the amendment applies to the factual circumstances that took place before the date of its coming into force. However, by virtue of the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of 30 October 2019 also the above-mentioned regulation expired to the extent in which it functioned under the interim provisions. The amendment of the administrative proceedings provisions and the aforementioned ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal made it possible to adjust the administrative procedure in this respect to the constitutional requirements as well as the provisions of the law of the European Union, and ensured the consistency of this regulation with analogous regulations in other proceedings in the Polish legal system.

Alicja Batko

Legal and Administrative Time Limits in the Context of the Latest Amendments of the Act of 14 June 1960 – Administrative Procedure Code

1960年6月14日行政程序法最新修正案背景下的法律和行政时限

As local, state, and federal governments increase their reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making tools designed and operated by private contractors, so too do public concerns increase over the accountability and transparency of such AI tools. But current calls to respond to these concerns by banning governments from using AI will only deny society the benefits that prudent use of such technology can provide. In this Article, we argue that government agencies should pursue a more nuanced and effective approach to governing the governmental use of AI by structuring their procurement contracts for AI tools and services in ways that promote responsible use of algorithms. By contracting for algorithmic accountability, government agencies can act immediately, without any need for new legislation, to reassure the public that governmental use of machine-learning algorithms will be deployed responsibly. Furthermore, unlike with the adoption of legislation, a contracting approach to AI governance can be tailored to meet the needs of specific agencies and particular uses. Contracting can also provide a means for government to foster improved deployment of AI in the private sector, as vendors that serve government agencies may shift their practices more generally to foster responsible AI practices with their private sector clients. As a result, we argue that government procurement officers and agency officials should consider several key governance issues in their contract negotiations with AI vendors. Perhaps the most fundamental issue relates to vendors’ claims to trade secret protection—an issue that we show can be readily addressed during the procurement process. Government contracts can be designed to balance legitimate protection of proprietary information with the vital public need for transparency about the design and operation of algorithmic systems used by government agencies. We further urge consideration in government contracting of other key governance issues, including data privacy and security, the use of algorithmic impact statements or audits, and the role for public participation in the development of AI systems. In an era of increasing governmental reliance on artificial intelligence, public contracting can serve as an important and tractable governance strategy to promote the responsible use of algorithmic tools.

Cary Coglianese

Erik Lampmann

Contracting for Algorithmic Accountability

算法问责的合同安排

COVID-19 is the ultimate test of administrative law and governance, as every country faces the common challenge of saving lives from a virulent pandemic at a manageable cost to the economy. Polls show that forty-eight percent of Americans think that COVID-19 posed an essentially impossible test and that the United States has performed as well as most other countries in meeting the pandemic challenge. This Essay refutes that misperception. It shows that the U.S. COVID-19 mortality rate for 2020, adjusted for population, was more than twice as high as Canada's and Germany's;forty times higher than Japan's;fifty-nine times higher than South Korea's, and 207 times higher than New Zealand's mortality rate despite over $2 trillion in U.S. deficit spending. In fact, U.S. performance at the level of South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan in containing the pandemic would have saved over 300,000 American lives in 2020 alone. This Essay then offers a detailed comparison of the COVID-19 response of the Trump Administration to that of New Zealand, which mounted a truly successful response. While some observers have dismissed New Zealand's success as an artifact of good luck-or of its geographic situation as a small, rural, island state-this Essay offers evidence to suggest that these distinctions are of marginal importance compared to a more crucial contrast: New Zealand followed the pandemic containment to the letter while, in the United States, the Trump Administration departed from that playbook at every turn. Moreover, New Zealand's response was centrally planned and tightly managed while the U.S. response was incoherent and decentralized. The evidence thus strongly suggests that the tragic disparity between America's COVID-19 performance and New Zealand's is primarily due-not to geography or happenstance-but to a stark contrast in the pandemic response strategy by New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern compared to that of President Trump. Leadership matters.

Abbreviation	Adm. Law Rev.
Journal Impact	1.80

ISSN	0001-8368, 2326-9154
h-index	32

Publication Information	Publisher: American Bar Association，Publishing cycle: ，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 2022，Proportion of original research papers: 0.00%，Self Citation Rate:N.A.， Gold OA Rate: 0.00%

Administrative Law Review

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience

Study on Legalization of Administrative Talk

On Legal Standard of Administrative Approval Power List

Dimension and Plight of the Rule of Law for Administrative Management System Innovation

Revaluation and Technical Improvement of Chief Executive Pleading in Court: Analysis on 66 Legal Norms in Zhejiang

On Alternation Judgment of Administrative Litigation

Legal and Administrative Time Limits in the Context of the Latest Amendments of the Act of 14 June 1960 – Administrative Procedure Code

Contracting for Algorithmic Accountability

WHY AMERICA'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC FAILED: LESSONS FROM NEW ZEALAND'S SUCCESS

The Italian Model to Fight COVID-19: Regional Cooperation, Regulatory Inflation, and the Cost of One-Size-Fits-All Lockdown Measures

Contracting for Algorithmic Accountability