On Administrative Discretion Used In Law Enforcement By The Quality And Technical Supervision Department

Administrative discretion, a core administrative power, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, its exercise is a must for modern administration, helping raise the efficiency of administration and bring benefits to the private party; on the other hand, the abuse of it will do great harm to the legal rights and interests of the private party, breed corruption, and even undermine the long-term stability of a state. The research on administrative discretion has always been an important topic in the circle of administrative law. As an important part of the government, the quality and technical supervision department has administrative discretion permeated in all of its functions. A consensus has gradually been reached on the importance of administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision, but there is no overall elaboration on administrative discretion in the law enforcement of quality and technical supervision. As a staff member working in the quality and technical supervision department, the author is strongly aware of the positive role administrative discretion plays in helping the quality and technical supervision department effectively perform its functions and of the disadvantages the abuse of administrative discretion will bring, and puts forward her point of view on the regulation of administrative discretion by integrating the practice of her work. The thesis can be divided into three major parts. The first part is about the fundamental theory of administrative discretion, starting from its etymology and historical development, and later on the basis of summarizing major viewpoints in the world, coming to the legal definition of administrative discretion in the author's viewpoint, i.e., the administrative body's power to choose in administration in a legal and reasonable way. The second part is about the present situation of administrative discretion used in law enforcement by the quality and technical supervision department and the analysis of existing problems. This part first expounds the rationality of the existence of administrative discretion from both the general and the specific angles, then the forms of expression of administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision, i.e., discretion in administrative legislation, discretion in administrative license, and discretion in administrative penalty, with the focus on discretion in administrative penalty, and finally the harm brought by the abuse of administrative discretion based on the analysis of the problems in the exercise of administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision, such as the to-be-improved laws and regulations, the uneven quality level of staff members, the lack of effective means of supervision and control on the exercise of discretion, and the abuse of discretion. The third part is about the measures of regulating administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision. It first puts forward the opinion that administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision should be legal and reasonable, and then discusses the key point of regulating administrative discretion—the internal measures of regulating administrative discretion in the quality and technical supervision department, including accelerating the cultivation of high-qualified personnel for administrative law enforcement, improving the administrative law enforcement procedure in the quality and technical supervision department, perfecting the responsibility system for and strengthening the supervision on administrative law enforcement, establishing and perfecting the top-down guidance and supervision system, enhancing publicity, and conducting theoretical research. As for the external measures of regulating administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision, the author stresses the following three aspects: strengthening legislation to offer legal support for the regulation of administrative discretion in the field of quality and technical supervision, further perfecting judicial supervision, and opening up to more public supervision.