Administrative Promises In Judicial Decisions

With the construction of a service-oriented government,a large number of new administrative activities come one after another,while beneficial and non-mandatory administrative promises have been widely made in practice.However,the research on administrative promises in certain academic circle,at present,is not mature.So much confusion has been caused since there is no consensus on the determination of administrative promises,the distinction with similar concepts,as well as the protection of rights and profits involved.Fortunately,the judiciary has dealt with considerable administrative promise cases,which makes it possible to solve the above problems.Based on the judicial trial practice,this article makes an empirical analysis of administrative promise cases via a case database so as to summarize the administrative promises in the perspective of the judge.We obtain 342 cases as the focus of this article eventually by entering “Administrative Promise” on the website Judgment Documents Online and pitching on “Administrative Case”.In accordance with the analysis of the sample cases,it is found that the handling of administrative promise cases presents the following characteristics: First,the majority of courts acknowledge that administrative promise contains elements of authority,administration,unilateralism and discretion.There are still some divergences in the identification of object and form requirements.Second,most of courts distinguish administrative promises and administrative rewards based on the content of the administrative action being sued,while administrative promises and administrative contracts are differentiated by the nature of the administrative action.In the end,courts in various regions make different judgments on administrative promise cases,showing a dynamic and conservative coexistence pattern.Despite the fact that judicial judgments provide guidance for the practice of administrative promises in the above aspects,room for further discussion still exists in the audit of specific cases.First,based on its dual nature,administrative promise is not determined by whether the object requirements are specific and the promises are open.Second,administrative promises and their similar cases forming in judicial rulings lack a certain theoretical basis of being distinguished,the method of which can be supplemented from the behavioral composition.Finally,in the process of selecting the form of judgment,it may be more appropriate to choose a substantive judgment in order to protect the rights and profits of counterparties.