On The Administrative Evidence

To control the executive power and protect citizen's rights and benefits is one of the common objectives of every country's administrative legislation. Administrative evidence plays an important role in the proper performing of executive power. As especial system, there is much different between the administrative evidence system and other systems in many aspects, such as the burden of proof, the objection of proof, the rule of proof and soon.The thesis consists of three parts besides the preface and the postscript, about 34,000 words.In the preface, the author points out that it is abnormal to give more attention to the evidence in administrative proceedings than the evidence in administrative procedure. The evidence in administrative procedure system is the base and premise of the evidence in administrative proceedings system. So, it is contrary to the law of development in things to exercise a blind researching on the condition that it is not clear about the base and premise. As a protecting procedure, the administrative procedure should be more important than the administrative proceedings that is as a relief procedure. The proof system in them is the same.Part one: the discrimination of concepts. At first, the author analyses the concepts and consider that proof is the foundation of proving, not facts. Base on this judgment, the author defines the administration evidence as the foundation in the aspects of facts to testify whether a government organ should do or not do certain administrative action. Although all the administrative actions need evidence, this paper's researching scope is limited in the proof of concrete administrative action.Part two: A study on the system of administrative evidence. The main idea of this part is to analyze the administrative evidence from concrete rules. Four issues are discussed in this part. 1. The value-orientation should be determined by benefits that are derived from the comprehensive consideration about the income and cost of evidence; 2. The burden of proof. This is the key point of this part. The author classifies the administrative action as burden-taking action and benefit-gaining action. Then, the burden of proof is discussed accordingly. 3. Thestandard of proving. The author provides different standards for different actions and different bodies. 4. The rule of proving. In order to debate this question, the author selects five important rules to precede it.Part three: Some consideration about legislation. In order to regulate administrative action and improve the standard of law enforcement, the author suggests that the administrative evidence system should be estabilished in detail.