Research On Administrative Judgment Institute During The Period Of Beijing Government Of The Republic Of China

In the history of China’s modern legal development,the establishment of the judicial system has been one judicial system and two judicial system of the fierce debate.In the period of the Beijing government of the Republic of China,the dual judicial system was finally established in China,and on this basis,the Administrative Judgment Institute was established as a special administrative litigation trial organ.The establishment of the Administrative Judgment Institute plays an important role in the establishment of modern judicial system in China.Although the Administrative Judgment Institute was established in the chaotic period of the Republic of China,the political turmoil and the complexity of the legal provisions caused some difficulties for the work of the Administrative Judgment Institute.However,we cannot deny that the existence of Administrative Judgment Institute,an administrative judicial organ,does protect the interests of the people to a certain extent and maintains the integrity of the administrative organs.The emergence of the Administrative Judgment Institute awakened the people’s sense of power,which overthrew the deep-rooted hierarchical thought of the Chinese nation for thousands of years,and for the first time put the common people and officials on an equal footing.At the very beginning of its establishment,the Administrative Judgment Institute aroused controversy in the academic circles,and there was fierce debate about whether it should adopt the unitary system or the binary system.According to the basis of its establishment,the Administrative Judgment Institute was an administrative organ directly subordinate to the President,so it could not be regarded as a judicial organ.The legal functions of the Administrative Judgment Institute include administrative trial and supervision and bullet correction,but it also plays an important role in the protection of civil officials’ rights in actual operation.We should also see that the power of the Administrative Judgment Institute comes from the authorization of the President.If the president negates a decision made by the Administrative Judgment Institute,the institute could only do what the president wants.That is to say,in essence,the Administrative Judgment Institute was inherently flawed because it is dependent on the president and lacks independence.Mainly reflected in: First,the number of institutions on the unreasonable setting.The establishment of a general office of the Administrative Judgment Institute in Beijing,with no local branches,had increased the pressure on the Administrative Judgment Institute to handle cases,which is far from meeting the needs of administrative litigation throughout the country.Second,the division of jurisdiction with the ordinary court is controversial.In the actual cases,the Administrative Judgment Institute was often due to unknown purview division of the Dali-yuan in disputes and disputes,because of Dali-yuan director of criminal cases,in many cases are heard,and flat political institutions are involved in criminal,this led directly to the marble courtyard Administrative Judgment Institute dispute on solve the problem of criminal disputes,use administrative power to a certain extent the infringement of the independence of judicial power.Third,too much reliance on the president’s final decision.As a judicial organ of administrative litigation,the Administrative Judgment Institute did not enjoy independent power completely.It was just an appendage of the president,and it need to follow the opinions of the president in the final decision.To a certain extent,it had become a tool for the president to maintain his own rule.However,the existence of Administrative Judgment Institute is of epoch-making significance in the development history of China’s modern legal system,and also has important value in the development history of constitutional government,which has become a milestone in the development history of China’s administrative litigation.