The Integrated Structure Of Internal Administrative Law

Since the 1980 s,with the expansion of the scope of practice of human beings,especially the development of a civilization represented by nuclear technology,information industry and chemical industry,human beings have entered the time of a risk society.To cope with the challenges brought thereafter,administrative organs have to undergo internal reform and implement measures that are totally different from those taken in the past to cope with risks.The basic structure of traditional internal administrative law was born in the time of order administration and has been transformed by supply administration.Its organizational law originates from the hierarchical system,and has experienced decentralization of organizations in the privatization wave;the behavior law takes administrative behavior as the core of the theoretical structure,presenting a multilevel nested structure consists of continuous behavior groups;the liability law presents a chain structure,transforming from external organizational liabilities to internal individual liabilities.This is essentially a "multilevel differentiated internal administrative law structure" model made up of multilevel organizations,multilevel behaviors,and multi-subject liabilities.This model is set up based on a professional,labor-dividing and deterrent legal mechanism,which can help handle the differentiated social affairs in the industrial society by segmenting complicated social issues.However,such a multilevel differentiated structure is over-fragmented,inefficient,and vulnerable to self-inflation.self-inflation,over-fragmented,and inefficiency.As the time of risk society arrives,the multilevel differentiated structure becomes increasingly inadaptable to its demands for flexibility,coordination and incentive.In a risk society,people live under the high probability that risks may occur or the pressure that risks are out breaking.The systematicness and complexity of risks make it necessary to integrate the decision-making power of traditional decentralized organizations;the suddenness and rapid spread of risks,make it necessary to integrate multilevel hierarchical behaviors;the collective artificiality and the intelligence transcending nature of risks make it necessary to integrate the chain accountability mechanism.Be it organizations similar to comprehensive command departments,integrated leapfrog direct reporting systems or integrated exemption mechanisms for personnel motivation,the mission is the same—integrating the organization,behavior and personnel involved in administration as a whole to cope with soaring administrative tasks within a certain period.This in its root represents a risk administration,an “integrated internal administrative law structure” mode differing from the “multilevel differentiated internal administrative law structure” of order administration and supply administration.Theoretically speaking,the integrated structure of internal administrative law is implemented on the basis of the integration principle of administration,and is an extension of the functionalism while respecting the inherent connotation of the normative principle of administration integration.In the theoretical context,in the preliminary,medium and mature stage of the industrial society,the administrative law has experienced the traditional bureaucratic government stage with concentrated power,the privatization stage with emphasis on decentralization,and the whole-government stage with excessive emphasis on differentiation and integration of power respectively.The integrated internal administrative law structure appeared in the third stage of the whole theoretical context.As for the internal structure,traditional administrative law consists of the organization law,behavior law and relief law,without distinguishing internal administrative law and external administrative law.From the perspective of administrative organs and based on the nature of administrative law as a power control law and objective law,administrative law actually consists of three parts— "organization law-behavior law-liability law".In this light,administrative law can be identified as a two-tier system made up of internal administrative law and external administrative law,with the two being parallel to each other and consisting of such three parts as organization law,behavior law and liability law.Therefore,the integrated structure of internal administrative law can be defined as the integration of organizational law,internal behavior law and internal liability law.Currently,the integrated structure of internal administrative law has just emerged,and problems like insufficient regulations and difficulties in giving full play to its functions still exist in relevant practices and systems.The root of these problems lies in the fact that these integrated administrative law mechanisms are still embedded in the traditional multilevel and differentiated administrative law structure.To solve the problems,it is necessary to further expand the internal structure and regulate the structure of the integrated administrative law based on the basic spirit of integrated administration.As far as the integrated organization structure is concerned,organizations like headquarters represent an attempt to integrate the power of functional departments,faced with problems related to theories,regulations and practice,including vague positioning of legal attributes,insufficient basis for power exercising and difficulty in the ascription of responsibilities.It is necessary to integrate power through headquarters,because the organizational structure of “strong government-weak department” defined by basic legislation has been reversed into a "weak government-strong department" structure in departmental legislation practice,which has led to the expansion of departmental power and the division of power and internal friction between departments,vertically restricting the power and overall function of the government.In order to correct such an unbalanced pattern and meet current demands for unified exercise of administrative power,the power of government departments must be allocated and exercised by the government in a unified manner,which indicates that such power is not owned by government departments naturally,but allocated by the government after basic laws empower the government.There is a normative basis to be observed by the government in reclaiming the power of government departments.The central government is only unable to reclaim the power of functional departments concerning the setup,cancellation or amalgamation of such departments.Any other provisions or practices,including provisions on competent departments in the department law,shall not constitute an obstacle for the government to reclaim the power of functional departments.As far as the integrated structure of behavior is concerned,the infectious disease direct reporting system and administrative systems allowing “leapfrog reporting when it is necessary” could help save time,reduce information transmission costs and improve risk responding efficiency.According to the structure standard,leapfrog administration can be divided into superior’s leapfrog administration against the inferior and inferior’s leapfrog administration against the superior.In addition to leapfrog information reporting,leapfrog administration also includes leapfrog promotion,leapfrog impeaching,leapfrog writing,leapfrog funding,leapfrog supervision,and leapfrog jurisdiction.The preconditions for leapfrog administration include substantive conditions and procedural conditions.The former refers to “the incident is a major or ordinarily severe one” or “the incident exceeds the geographic scope of the region” or “the impact of the incident exceeds the risk response capability of the local government” or “the incident has caused personal injury or death",while the latter means that approval is required.When it comes to legal effects,leapfrog administration does not mean releasing the inferior organs from their administrative liabilities.The dual-leadership of the People’s Congress and the government provides fundamental support for ensuring the efficiency of leapfrog administration,and local governments at all levels should be accountable to the people’s congress at the same level in a more pragmatic way.This indicates that the leapfrog administration would not interfere in the leadership of intermediate governments,and would only fulfill the responsibilities as authorized by the People’s Congress.Specific measures that could help ensure the effectiveness of leapfrog administration include standardizing conditions and procedures of leapfrog administration and setting up a joint liability mechanism.As far as the integrated structure of liability is concerned,law enforcement exemption can give full play to the role of the liability mechanism to encourage law enforcers to take responsibility and help take administration as a whole to respond to risks.The basis of risk administrative law enforcement exemption lies in the fact that law enforcers’ risk decision-making behavior is restricted substantially.If the accountability is traced according to relevant laws and regulations of the normal society,the requirements for justice in responsibility bearing could not be met by simply setting up a strict accountability system and even lead to adverse effects.Therefore,in a risk society,the nature of liability to partially transformed from moral liability to social liability,with the accountability mechanism increasingly relying on organization liability instead of extending to individual liability.Regulations on law enforcement exemption can be divided into two major elements as "emergency events" and "reasonable duty of care".Emergencies constituting law enforcement exemptions can be divided into two types: de jure emergencies and de facto emergencies.The clearest criterion for judging whether a de jure emergency occurs is that a country or some regions are announced entering an emergency state according to relevant regulations in the Constitution and other laws.De facto emergencies can be identified according to the limitation on and complexity of time,information and risks.The reasonable duty of care in the risk administrative law is higher than that of ordinary citizens,but lower than that of normal administrative law enforcers and experts.