Administrative Law Review

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

Administrative law review

On Legal Standard of Administrative Approval Power List

行政审批权力清单的法律标准研究

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

Study on Legalization of Administrative Talk

行政谈话合法化研究

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

法院审理中首席执行人抗辩的再评估与技术改进：基于浙江省66个法律规范的分析

Administrative interview inten rules for interviewreleased by Cyberspace Administration of China is not administrative guidance but a mixed action of factual act and specific act. The legal basis of administrative interview is Administrative Penalties Law and Administrative Regulations of Internet News Service. To develop administrative interview system, the administration should prevent the abuse of discretion, improve procedure, normalize evaluation system, and strengthen supervision and relief.

Zheng Nin

Administrative Interview in the Internet Content Supervision:Theory Interpretation and Institution Perfection

互联网内容监管中的行政约谈：理论解读与制度完善

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

行政诉讼变更判决研究

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.

短名	Adm. Law Rev.
Journal Impact	1.80
期刊索引	中科院 2 区

ISSN	0001-8368, 2326-9154
h-index	32
国内分区	法学(2区)法学法学(2区)

涉及主题	政治学法学业务经济哲学公共行政计算机科学社会学地理历史考古法律与经济学行政法认识论程序设计语言语言学心理学生物物理数学中国政治财务量子力学
出版信息	出版商: American Bar Association，出版周期: ，期刊类型: journal，开源期刊: 否
基本数据	创刊年份: 2022，原创研究文献占比: 0.00%，自引率:N.A.， Gold OA占比: 0.00%

Administrative Law Review

期刊引文格式

有 1 位以上作者的期刊

有 2 位作者的期刊

有 3 位作者的期刊

有 5 位以上作者的期刊

书籍引用格式

学位论文引用格式

网页引用格式

专利引用格式

手工熬夜修改参考文献？研飞自动匹配期刊，一键轻松成稿，支持 Word/WPS

投稿经验分享

On Legal Standard of Administrative Approval Power List

Study on Legalization of Administrative Talk

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

Administrative Interview in the Internet Content Supervision:Theory Interpretation and Institution Perfection

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