On The Judicial Review Standard Of Administrative Abuse Of Power

Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates "abuse of power" as a legal ground for revoking specific administrative acts.However,in judicial practice,the court rarely directly cites this provision as the basis for judgment.The main reason for this is that there are many disputes in the academic community regarding the scope and nature of abuse of power,and there is still no consensus.The law has not clearly defined the connotation of abuse of power,and the judicial review standard for abuse of power urgently needs to be unified.This article first sorts out the theoretical controversies in the academic community about administrative abuse of power,including the scope,nature,criteria for identification,and subjective elements of administrative agencies.It explains the normative connotation of administrative abuse of power from a theoretical perspective.Secondly,the thesis focuses on six common standards for reviewing abuse of power,namely inappropriate purposes,irrelevant considerations,manifestly unfair,inconsistent,abuse of procedures,and unauthorized administration,based on typical cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court.Due to the uncertainty of the connotation of abuse of power in practice,the concept of legal judicial review,and the adherence to rigidly applying legal provisions,there are still many problems in the application of the standard for abuse of power in China’s administrative litigation.Finally,the thesis proposes suggestions for improving the judicial review standard for administrative abuse of power,believing that the standard should be unified,moderately following the principle of judicial restraint and adhering to a functionalist position,and clarifying the functional positioning of abuse of power as a substantive review standard.At the same time,relevant supporting systems should be improved,such as perfecting the case guidance system,the responsibility proof system,and the judicial document writing system,etc.