Expression Of The Public Interest And Justice

The following questions have always been thought in the field of administrative law,including: What is public interest? What is its range? Who has the authority to decide it? Howto identify it in reality? And, for the court, how to judge the public interest in the concretedcase? All of these are the questions that will be discussed in this paper. As we all know, thedevelopment of our country’s urbanization makes house demolition cause plenty ofcontradictions and conflicts, which become more prominent and sharper daily, so, as legallearners, we need to consider how to standardize the use of the public interest during theexpropriation and resettlement of the houses and how to efficiently resolve the contradictionsand conflicts between the public interest and the civil rights by the approach of legalization,which are on account of the expropriation and resettlement of the houses. In the process ofsolving the problem, we must consider the public interest---the legal base and source of theaction of the government’s expropriation. Whatever is on the legal system research or thelegal system construction, legal researchers at home or abroad always try their best to perfectthe public interest and get plenty of achievements. In China, for the first time, theOrdinance of the Expropriation and Compensation of the House on the State Land (thefollowing is called the Ordinance of the Expropriation and Compensation)definitely definethe public interest situation during the urban house expropriation, achieving thematerialization of the public interest, whose progressive meaning is self-evident. There is along way from the formulating of the Ordinance of the Expropriation and Compensation tothe really realization of the public interest.The formulating of the Ordinance of the Expropriation and Compensation has twoexposure drafts and seeks out the public advice two times. Combing the progress of thelegalization and comparing the contents of two exposure drafts and the finalizing manuscriptcan help us really know the original intention of the Ordinance of the Expropriation andCompensation，and maybe the analysis on the game process of the mutual parts can help usexplore the actual limitation where the public interest can be used. There are many differencesbetween the two exposure drafts and the finalizing manuscript which are the difference on thepublic interest formulation, the difference on the expropriation procedure formulation, thedifference on the compensation procedure formulation, the difference on the forcedexpropriation main parts and the difference on the non-public and relocation main parts. At the same time, the Ordinance of the Expropriation and Compensation itself also has manyproblems, such as normative effect, the formulation of the public interest contents,expropriation procedure of formulation with advance notice deficiency, the limitation of thecontents of the public participating and the deficiency of the continuing liability of ourgovernment and so on.The law can be executed by itself. Whatever the formulation of the public interest of theOrdinance of the Expropriation and Compensation is perfect, public interest can become truewhen it is used in practice properly, so it is no doubt that the justice application the most justand ensured situation. The justice application of public interest experiences the process fromproducing to production. So, at the beginning of the administrative lawsuit investigating thepublic interest, it is necessary for us to card and proof for prerequisite and restrictingconditions of the justice application of public interest. The prerequisite conditions of thejustice application of public interest are the law veer of the public interest, the determinationof the indeterminate concept, and the defining of the public interest of the quality of theseparation of powers of constitution and its restricting conditions are the leading of theadministrative resource and the levy action of legal structure.At the beginning of the justice application of public interest, we should pay moreattention to and draw references from the judicial experience of anther countries. In the paper,I simply introduce the situations of the justice application of public interest in America,Germany and France. It must be a long developing process for court to investigate the publicinterest, according to the court’s independence and neutrality in investing levying cases andholding the public interest, and the trial skills and experience during the concreted trialprocess. We think, at the beginning of the justice application of public interest, court works asa coordinator most time. The court’s levying process is also a coordinated one between theadministrative body and owner. Only when the justice application of public interest has plentyof experience, can it get into the advanced stage. Until now, court can make judgesinfluentially which can be executed by the administrative body and owner. In the end, thepaper describes the concreted questions on the justice application of public interest: whetherthe standards of the legal levying are obstacles, and the objects and standards of the judicialreview of the public interest.