Standard Of Suability Of Procedural Actions

Punishment for dishonesty is a composite of multiple behavior forms including "credit","assessment" and "use of letter".The legal attribute of dishonesty punishment is accurately defined to determine whether it is suable. prerequisites.Both the integrated review method and the classification review method adopted in judicial practice have the problems of unclear definition of the legal attributes of disciplinary and disciplinary actions and unclear judgment of their suability.In theory,there are theoretical studies that have drawn conclusions through the use of administrative action form theory,administrative process theory,and government regulation theory.These theories are either one-sided or subjectively conjectured by researchers,but they also fail to reveal the untrustworthy union The nature of disciplinary action cannot provide a clear standard of actionability for judicial review and should be reconstructed.Introducing the theory of administrative legal relationship as a new analytical framework,it can be found that the tripartite subject is included in the disciplinary action,forming a triple administrative legal relationship: In the relationship between the credit evaluation agency and the administrative counterpart who is the object of evaluation,the administrative agency made Credit evaluation should be defined as administrative confirmation and suable.From the perspective of the relationship between the administrative agency and the public,the disclosure of credit evaluation results belongs to the “information public product” provided by the administrative agency to the public,and should be characterized as the government ’s active disclosure of information.In principle,it is not suable,but the public In the case of "interest",the qualification of plaintiff can be recognized exceptionally.Finally,in the relationship between disciplinary agencies and dishonest persons,subsequent disciplinary measures are stacked by various forms of administrative actions.Therefore,the legal attributes and suability of subsequent disciplinary measures cannot be judged as a whole,and they can simply be summarized For a new type of administrative punishment and recognition of its actionability,the correct approach should be to make specific judgments based on the specific form of disciplinary measures.Judicial review of disciplinary actions should take into account the dual objectives of system effectiveness and legitimacy.With regard to the choice of review approach,the court should conduct independent review and differentiated review.It should not only conduct classified review based on different forms of conduct in different legal relationships,but also construct different review standards based on different review content,and also distinguish between factual issues and Legal issues take different levels of scrutiny.