The Boundary Between Administrative Coercive Measures And Administrative Penalties

Administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties are two kinds of specific administrative actions which are very frequent in the practice of administrative law enforcement.The two are of different nature but closely related.These two administrative acts are similar in terms of behavior names,external manifestations,mandatory characteristics and the adverse effects on the rights of the relative people,which lead to two strong confusion in theory and practice.The nature of an administrative act will cause controversy between administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties,and it is difficult to achieve unity,causing many problems to administrative law enforcement and judicial practice.Therefore,to distinguish the administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties accurately,to clarify the nature of the disputes administrative administration is of great significance for maintaining the procedural rights and interests of the relative party,and regulating the law enforcement and judicial actions.This paper mainly studied the fuzzy boundaries between the administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties,looking for can effectively distinguish two kinds of administrative behavior standards,the behavior is easy to produce confusion in the practice of judgment,to provide reference for promoting the unity and authority of law enforcement and judicial.As the beginning of the research,we first define the connotation of administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties.The similarity of the two causes the confusion of the current administrative coercion and administrative punishment in our country.To fully understand the current situation and problems,provide a realistic basis for the following research,through comparative case combing and legal norms,the implementation of administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties areanalyzed and summed up the current two in the operation of administrative behavior cognizance and behavior are not unified on the basis of a serious nature of norms two aspects of contradiction.These practical problems are sufficient to prove that a clear distinction between administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties is urgent and realistic.Based on the predicament of the current situation,it is necessary and important to distinguish administrative coercive measures from administrative penalties,which are mainly reflected in promoting procedural justice and substantive justice,standardizing law enforcement and judicial acts.Specific performance: first,to protect the legitimate rights and interests of people,because the two kinds of administrative behavior in strict legislative provisions and procedures and the implementation of the mandatory degree is not the same,such as the requirements of the procedure of administrative punishment is more stringent,so once the nature of behavior recognition errors will cause adverse consequences relative to the substantive and procedural rights the infringed;second,standardize law enforcement,administrative act is two different legal norms,after the administrative subject can correctly distinguish the correct law enforcement procedures,law enforcement behavior to meet the requirements;third,to ensure the accuracy of judicial review,because the two kinds of administrative behavior according to different judicial standards in the field of legal review is not the same,legitimate once the confusion is unable to accurately judge the administrative behavior.Finally,the rules of jurisdiction are not the same.In the part of compulsory measures that restrict the freedom of the person,the parties may choose the defendant's place of action to sue.If it is confused with personal free punishment,the parties can not enjoy the right of litigation.Therefore,we should try to distinguish between administrative coercive measures and administrative penalties,and discuss the criteria that should be applied to distinguish between them.The characteristics and essence of combining two kinds of administrative behavior,criterion mainly includes five aspects: first,different purposes,administrative punishment has a sanction,the purpose of administrativecoercive measures are based on security;second,the premise of administrative penalties to the illegal behavior,to the essential premise,and administrative coercive measures is not required;third,administrative punishment is the final result of the process of administrative law enforcement,administrative compulsory measures are temporary,just a stage in the process of law enforcement;fourth,the effect of different administrative punishment is to determine the relative rights of people deprived of temporary restrictions and administrative coercive measures just on the relative rights;fifth,compulsory measures of evidence standard is low,must not causality between harm behavior and results show that the The administrative act can be carried out.On the basis of the above theoretical standards,the nature of the disputed behavior can be identified.Including the seizure and confiscation,seized and confiscated,seized and suspended license,analyze the restrictions on personal freedom of compulsory measures and administrative detention and ordered to cease and ordered to stop other behavior five on behavior,nature of behavior clearly.Finally,the theoretical standard is a rational research.Although it can provide some references and ideas,there may be many different views and changes because of academic circles and practice sessions.Therefore,we should also discuss a practical and unified solution,and legal solution is an important way of thinking.For administrative penalties and administrative coercive measures,the categories of legislation are not perfect,which is easy to cause difficulties.It is necessary to improve the category rules from legislation and clarify the boundary from the inside of behavior.At the same time,in view of the nature of the most controversial behaviors,we can use legal interpretation and judicial guidance cases to make clear,so as to determine the unified applicable standard and solve disputes.