Administrative Proceedings By The Scope Of The Case

China' s entry to WTO offered an opportunity to broaden the jurisdictional range of administrative litigation. According to rules of WTO, final administrative judgments and some abstract administrative actions should be brought into the range of judicial review. This article starts to compare and analyze the jurisdiction of other countries, and then checks up defining models of jurisdiction in Administrative Litigation Act Of China and the judicial interpretations on Administrative Litigation Act, which was passed by Supreme Court in November 1999. Finally, the author drew the conclusion that, in fact, it adopts the exemplified model, although it is mixed inform. This model has at least the following defects: firstly, it is hard to include all administrative disputes; secondly, standards of definition to right over body and property right improperly limit the range and sorts of administrative cases; Finally, the exemplified administrative action themselves are not classified with the same standard, therefore, the author presents some ways to improve. Also he dwells on the exclusive regulations, then points out some internal and abstract administrative should be included in the jurisdiction; Actions in the judicial interpretations are not the ones in the judicial interpretations are not the ones in the sense of administrative litigation; so that this regulation has no actual meaning; and thecreations of finial administrative judgment should be paid cautious attention. The judicial interpretation adds some new unappeasable actions to the former exclusive regulations rather than broaden the range of jurisdiction. Here the author regards the interpretation on this article as a failure, because the definition of jurisdictional range relates to the share of power between administration and jurisdiction and to the degree of jurisdictional interference with administration. Administrative authority and jurisdictional themselves don't have the power to define the range. Only legislative authority, which is above them, can define it in law. Supreme peoples court of course has no such a power. At last, the author points out that the administrative contract, the administrative, guidance, semi-legislative actions brought into jurisdictional range from the angle of protecting legal interests of citizens, juristic person and other entities. Administrative organ possesses the privilege in performing the administrative contract, hence, administrative contract is actually a way to fulfill administrative object, and it has no difference with other administrative actions. Therefore administrative contract should be brought into jurisdiction; Administrative guidance has variety of sorts, accordingly, it has different legal features. Some of them belong to legal action, others are factual action, and still others belong to semi-legal action. Whether administrative guidance can be sued is up to its legal character. Administrative guidance, which belongs to legal action or semi-legal action, can be brought into jurisdiction, while administrative guidance belong to factual action can ask for legal remedies of state compensation. It is not scientific attitude to decide jurisdiction without considering china's reality of administrative guidance. Although semi-legal action doesn't create new right or obligation, It often prepares for administrative activity, so it is also should be brought into jurisdiction; Administrative factual action produce legal consequence according to not expression of intention but by legal rule. Since administrative factual action produces legal consequence, of course it will have effect on citizen' s right and obligation, therefore, it is required to endow with them right to ask for judicial remedies.