72-year-old PKU professor details the development of administrative law, its effects on the Chinese people and the Communist Party of China, and vows continuous effort toward democracy & rule of law
Very interesting, thank you. It seems to me that China is going through a flourishing of administrative which Australia went through about 50 years ago. When I studied law in Melbourne in the mid 1980’s I recall my professor of Administrative Law say that the expansion of Australian administrative law (achieved in part by legislation and in part by judicial activism) was the most important development in Australian law. Personally I don’t think it was that radical a change, but it did lead to people being able to hold bureaucrats accountable for decisions. The most important aspect of it was the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal dedicated to giving citizens a relatively low cost process for reviewing administrative decisions made by government departments and Ministers.
To me, Administrative Law can be summarised as two basic principles of “natural justice”: first, an obligation of due process, such as giving people affected a right to be heard before making decisions that affect them. Second, a requirement for impartiality. The decision-maker must not have a personal interest in the outcome of the decision.
The Administrative Tribunals were different from courts in that the Tribunal could make decisions “de novo”, whereas courts could only review an administrative decision. If a court found the decision was flawed, it had to be sent back to the decision-maker to decide the matter again. But the Tribunal had the power to make the decision themselves. Not just direct the decision-maker to review their decision.
Be wary, Confucius was more clued in than we might recognize today, that a procedural system can be played(and in the case of the USA was played) to favor the 1% over the majority, i.e.: he with the gold is who hires the lawyers and lawmakers. It can be come ceremony (礼）with out humanity （仁)。 This is doubly true in settler-colonial projects like Australia, Israel, and the USA; each held up as symbols of democracy when they are anything but; rather brutal exploiters of their spheres of influence.
Very interesting, thank you. It seems to me that China is going through a flourishing of administrative which Australia went through about 50 years ago. When I studied law in Melbourne in the mid 1980’s I recall my professor of Administrative Law say that the expansion of Australian administrative law (achieved in part by legislation and in part by judicial activism) was the most important development in Australian law. Personally I don’t think it was that radical a change, but it did lead to people being able to hold bureaucrats accountable for decisions. The most important aspect of it was the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal dedicated to giving citizens a relatively low cost process for reviewing administrative decisions made by government departments and Ministers.
To me, Administrative Law can be summarised as two basic principles of “natural justice”: first, an obligation of due process, such as giving people affected a right to be heard before making decisions that affect them. Second, a requirement for impartiality. The decision-maker must not have a personal interest in the outcome of the decision.
The Administrative Tribunals were different from courts in that the Tribunal could make decisions “de novo”, whereas courts could only review an administrative decision. If a court found the decision was flawed, it had to be sent back to the decision-maker to decide the matter again. But the Tribunal had the power to make the decision themselves. Not just direct the decision-maker to review their decision.
Very interesting, thank you. It seems to me that China is going through a flourishing of administrative which Australia went through about 50 years ago. When I studied law in Melbourne in the mid 1980’s I recall my professor of Administrative Law say that the expansion of Australian administrative law (achieved in part by legislation and in part by judicial activism) was the most important development in Australian law. Personally I don’t think it was that radical a change, but it did lead to people being able to hold bureaucrats accountable for decisions. The most important aspect of it was the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal dedicated to giving citizens a relatively low cost process for reviewing administrative decisions made by government departments and Ministers.
To me, Administrative Law can be summarised as two basic principles of “natural justice”: first, an obligation of due process, such as giving people affected a right to be heard before making decisions that affect them. Second, a requirement for impartiality. The decision-maker must not have a personal interest in the outcome of the decision.
The Administrative Tribunals were different from courts in that the Tribunal could make decisions “de novo”, whereas courts could only review an administrative decision. If a court found the decision was flawed, it had to be sent back to the decision-maker to decide the matter again. But the Tribunal had the power to make the decision themselves. Not just direct the decision-maker to review their decision.
Be wary, Confucius was more clued in than we might recognize today, that a procedural system can be played(and in the case of the USA was played) to favor the 1% over the majority, i.e.: he with the gold is who hires the lawyers and lawmakers. It can be come ceremony (礼）with out humanity （仁)。 This is doubly true in settler-colonial projects like Australia, Israel, and the USA; each held up as symbols of democracy when they are anything but; rather brutal exploiters of their spheres of influence.
Very interesting, thank you. It seems to me that China is going through a flourishing of administrative which Australia went through about 50 years ago. When I studied law in Melbourne in the mid 1980’s I recall my professor of Administrative Law say that the expansion of Australian administrative law (achieved in part by legislation and in part by judicial activism) was the most important development in Australian law. Personally I don’t think it was that radical a change, but it did lead to people being able to hold bureaucrats accountable for decisions. The most important aspect of it was the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal dedicated to giving citizens a relatively low cost process for reviewing administrative decisions made by government departments and Ministers.
To me, Administrative Law can be summarised as two basic principles of “natural justice”: first, an obligation of due process, such as giving people affected a right to be heard before making decisions that affect them. Second, a requirement for impartiality. The decision-maker must not have a personal interest in the outcome of the decision.
The Administrative Tribunals were different from courts in that the Tribunal could make decisions “de novo”, whereas courts could only review an administrative decision. If a court found the decision was flawed, it had to be sent back to the decision-maker to decide the matter again. But the Tribunal had the power to make the decision themselves. Not just direct the decision-maker to review their decision.