earticle

영어

In recent years,the concept of "flawed administrative act" began to appear frequently in Chinese administrative law theory and administrative trial practice. Although Chinese scholars generally show strong interest in the theory of flawed administrative act, especially the theory of invalid administrative act and the theory of revocable administrative act, trying to construct a series of system of the flawed administrative act and conduct more in-depth studies,but there are still some problems in theoretical research like a lack of uniformity in the definition of flawed administrative act，the judgment standard of different types of flawed administrative act is not clear，a difficult for the relative to achieve in Resistance to invalid behavior，so the theoretical research can not effectively respond to the administrative rule of law practice. At the same time, the legislation of flawed administrative act is not unified with the stipulation of flawed administrative act extension, the stipulation of minor flaw administrative act, the situation of the same type of flaw and the way of relief. In practice, the people's courts at all levels in China have, through a great deal of trial practice, worked out trial standards for different types of administrative acts of defects. However, because the courts have different understanding and understanding of different types of administrative behavior, even for the same type of flaw administrative behavior also appeared in the same case different sentencing phenomenon. Therefore, the study of flaw administrative behavior, both in theory and in practice are faced with some difficulties, need to be improved. China should establish a unified administrative system of flawed administrative act in the future Administrative Procedure Law, define the flaw administrative acts in a broad sense, and clearly define the standards and legal consequences of administrative actions of different types of flaws. In addition, administrative litigation and administrative reconsideration decisions should be added to give administrative organs the opportunity to remediate flawed administrative acts.

중국어

近几年来，“瑕疵行政行为”的概念开始在中国行政法理论以及行政审判实践中频频出现。虽然中国学者普遍对瑕疵行政行为的理论特别是无效行政行为理论和可撤销行政行为的理论表现出浓厚的兴趣，试图积极建构关于瑕疵行政行为的一系列制度，并进行了较为深入的研究，但在理论研究中仍存在对瑕疵行政行为的概念界定缺乏统一性、不同类型瑕疵行政行为的判断标准不明确、相对人对无效行政行为难以实现抵抗权等问题。因而理论研究无法有效回应行政法治实践。 同时，瑕疵行政行为的立法中存在着对瑕疵行政行为外延的规定不统一、对明显轻微瑕疵行政行为的规定不足、对于同一类型瑕疵的情形及救济方式的规定不统一的问题。 在实践中，中国各级人民法院通过大量的审判实践，逐步摸索出不同类型瑕疵行政行为的审判标准。但是由于法院对不同类型的瑕疵行政行为的认识和理解不统一，即使针对同一类型瑕疵行政行为的判决也出现了同案不同判的现象。 因而，瑕疵行政行为的研究无论是在理论上还是在实践上都面临了一些困境，亟待完善。中国应在未来拟制定的《行政程序法》中构建统一的瑕疵行政行为制度，从广义上界定瑕疵行政行为，明确规定不同类型瑕疵行政行为的判断标准及法律后果。此外，应增加行政诉讼补正判决和行政复议补正决定，以赋予行政机关补救轻微瑕疵行政行为的机会。