| In practice,China’s current emergency administrative requisition can be classified as requisition of property,labor,and production capacity.In the emergency requisition process,due to the urgency of the situation,there are problems such as vague requisition subject provisions leading to inappropriate expansion of requisitioning power,unclear compensation subject,and low compensation standards,which result in inadequate protection of the rights and interests of condemnees.Through the investigation and research of the emergency requisition system both domestically and internationally,this article proposes the following solutions to improve the protection of the rights and interests of relevant parties:Firstly,provide direct protection through a combination of administrative compensation and rewards.Without compensation,there should be no requisition.For emergency requisition,consideration should first be given to using administrative compensation to compensate for the losses caused to the relevant parties by the requisition.Although China’s legal texts include expressions such as "corresponding compensation","compensation" and "appropriate compensation",there is no clear compensation principle.In determining the compensation principle,due to the level of national fiscal revenue,China cannot adopt the fully compensatory model of developed countries.This article proposes that compensation for emergency administrative requisition should be between "appropriate compensation" and "full compensation",with "reasonable compensation" as the basic principle for compensating the requisitioned persons.For condemnees who have made outstanding contributions in responding to emergencies,administrative rewards can be used to compensate for the losses suffered.This not only protects the rights and interests of the affected parties but also encourages citizens to actively assist in emergency event management on a larger social scale.By combining administrative compensation with administrative rewards,the interests of relevant parties in emergency administrative requisition can be better protected.Secondly,provide indirect protection through scope control of emergency administrative requisition.With regard to the requisitioning subject,the exercise of the emergency requisition power should be limited to the county-level government and above.Given the special role of temporary organizations in responding to emergencies,they can be granted requisition power,but must be subjected to stricter scrutiny.The property that has already been requisitioned by other agencies should not be subject to requisition.Materials used by citizens and organizations for self-rescue should not be requisitioned.In the process of requisition,the principle of minimum guarantee of subsistence should be upheld,and materials that will indeed cause significant adverse effects on relative parties after deprivation should not be requisitioned.In terms of the requisition procedure,the basic principles of procedural justice should be adhered to in order to restrain regulate requisition behavior in emergency situations.As for the situation where the on-site commander decides on requisition under "extremely urgent circumstances" in some laws,it must be strictly limited and cannot be expanded for the sake of efficiency alone due to the highly simplified procedure in such situation.Finally,give full play to the procedural value of administrative consultation in emergency requisition.Although administrative consultation is not a necessary procedure for emergency administration,the value of administrative consultation in emergency requisition should be fully recognized.Consultation can take place before requisition and can also be used in relief measures after requisition to explore the realization of non-confrontational flexible law enforcement. |
