Research On The Perfection Of Administrative Recovery System

China's administrative recovery system can be traced back to the “Administrative Procedures Law” in 1989.However,the recovery system has not achieved significant development in the past 30 years.Today,it has already fallen into a difficult position to implement.Based on the current status of the reimbursement system,the author analyzes and argues that the internalized reimbursement system and lack of legislation are the main factors that hinder the development of administrative recovery.In practice,China has long used the administrative recovery system as a kind of disciplinary punishment within the administrative body,excluding the supervision and restriction outside the administrative system,resulting in administrative recovery as a "dormancy system."In order to awaken the administrative recovery system to change the status quo difficult to implement,many scholars have conducted research and exploration.In summary,at present there are two main points of view regarding the reform path of the administrative recovery system in the academic community.First,the model of “the civil servant is directly responsible to the victim” is established.It is stipulated that under certain circumstances,civil servants shall be liable for damages directly to the victims,and will no longer insist on the practice of first obtaining compensation from the state and then recovering the civil servants.However,this model is in contradiction with the theoretical foundation of China's national liability as its responsibility,and it is incompatible with China's national compensation theory system.Second,reform the theoretical basis of administrative recovery.The traditional theory of special power relations is abolished and the system of recovery is designed to construct a recourse system.For the above two perspectives,the author believes that the latter has more realistic possibilities.According to the "importance theory" to re-interpret the system of administrative recovery,it makes it possible for other state agencies outside the administrative system to exercise supervision and control over the exercise of recourse rights,and further proposes that supervisory organs review the administrative recovery decision of the recovery agency through the form of monitoring advice.,By the form of judicial advice by the people's court in the form of judicial compensation in the administrative compensation litigation attached to the existence of the conditions for the recovery,thus forming a double constraint on the recovery agencies.The difficulty in determining administrative responsibilities is also an important factor in recovering difficulties.If the responsibilities are unclear,it cannot be properly recovered.This requires strengthening the guiding role of administrative sanctions on recovery.In addition,there are also problems such as obscure recovery standards,lack of timeliness,and procedural rules in the legislation.In this regard,the author advocates the establishment of a national standard for recovery,the abolition of local standards,and the calculation of the amount to be reimbursed on a monthly salary basis.Regarding the prescription of the limitation of recovery,the author thinks that it should be consistent with the relevant limitation of state compensation and administrative punishment.Procedurally,the author believes that the time for recourse against administrative recovery is not mature.However,it is possible to increase the supervisory and review procedures of the supervisory organs and the people's courts by setting up procedures for the recovery of the recovery agencies strictly,so as to lay the foundation for the realization of the recovery of claims.