| The perfection of institution of judicial censorship on abstract administrative acts (AAA)poses a new and important question for study both in theory and practice. In spite of the heterogeneity of studies in this area, this issue is still a severely understudies area wide-open for research on many fronts. It's essential to strengthen the superintendence on AAA in the administrative setup. The means of superstition now available include the superstition on judicial bodies, higher-leading bodies and administrative setup. In spite of the fact that AAA is excluded beyond lawsuit in China's administrative proceeding law, i.e., litigant has no right to take legal proceedings, the law doesn't deprive the court of the right on the judicial sensorship on AAA. Actually, People's court has exercised the judicial censorship on AAA by some means in the practices of administrative proceedings. However, the instition of judicial censorship is kind of indirect and implicit one with limited effect. Moreover, there existed conspicuous shortcomings and limitations in the present superstition proceedings practiced by authorities bodies and administrative setup. In light of the practices of western countries on this field, judicial censorship proves to be an effective way to supervise AAA. Therefore, it is necessary and sensible to perfect institution of judicial censorship on AAA in China. The current paper aims at discussing the necessity and possibilities of the perfection of institution of judicial censorship on AAA as well as proposing some instructional suggestions.The current paper makes a detailed study on some law issues closely related to China's institution of judicial censorship on AAA by means of a analysis, constrast and positivism. The whole paper includes four parts with approximately 45,000 Chinese characters.The first part explains some basic definition of AAA and judicial censorship .In the academic field, researchers have controvertial views on how to define AAA and judicial censorship. In the author's viewpoint, Abstract administrative acts, opposite to concrete administrative acts, can be defined as the regulatory and standard documents formulated by administrative setup, which includes administrative legislation and administrative regulation documents. In turn, administrative legislation can be divided into administrative law and administrative regulations. Judicial censorship, originating from American and British law system, can be defined as a certain policy, in which the judicial bodies supervise the activities of other national authority bodies, correct those violation acts and take some remedial measures incorrespondence to the harm of the expediency of the litigants. Until now, the judicial censorship is exercised by means of administrative lawsuit in China.Part two analyses and comments on the present situation of China's judicial censorship on AAA. In the author's opinion, AAA is an indispensible part in China's institution of judicial censorship. The present law deprives the court of the absolute judicial censorship on AAA, but retains the indirect authority on judicial censorship. In spite of its incidental and flexible characteristics, the present institution of judicial censorship is far from perfection.The third part expounds the necessities and possibilities of perfecting China's institution of judicial censorship on AAA. According to the author, judicial censorship on AAA serves several functions. Firstly, it restricts the powers. Secondly, it maintains the unity of socialist law system. Thirdly, it guarantees the expendiency of the party in administrative setup. Lastly, it meets the need of WTO regulations. Both authority bodies and administrative setup have their own limitations and disadvantages when supervising on AAA. The perfection of institution of judicial censorship on AAA can be based on Constitution and some other sound theories. Moreover, it has its unique advantages compared with that of authority bodies and administrative setup. We can use successful experiences of judicial... |