Exploring Paths for Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes:An Empirical Analysis Based on Practice in Weiyuan County, Sichuan Province

Wang Suzhen*

Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences

Abstract: As an effective means of addressing social contradictions, the substantive settlement of administrative disputes refers to the timely, impartial, and effective handling of such disputes.It embodies the essence of the modern governance system enabled by the principles and methodologies of the rule of law.Administrative reconsideration, the main channel for settling administrative disputes, is an inevitable consequence of its effective role in settling such disputes.The efficient adjudication of administrative litigation is an indispensable prerequisite for achieving the substantive settlement of administrative disputes, while the diverse approaches employed in settling these disputes contribute to achieving source governance of such disputes.Along with the efficient adjudication of administrative litigation and the multiple approaches to settling administrative disputes, the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration decisions constitutes a comprehensive system that ensures the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.

Keywords: administrative disputes, substantive settlement, efficient adjudication

The settlement of administrative disputes was initially achieved through the mechanism of administrative reconsideration.It ushered in further developments when administrative litigation was established as a means of settling administrative disputes.Ultimately, it took shape from the proposal that emphasizes the substantial role played by administrative reconsideration in settling administrative disputes.TheRegulation on the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of Chinaadopted in 2007, specifies in Article 1 the pivotal role played by “...the functions of the administrative reconsideration system in the settlements of administrative disputes...”①The Regulation on the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007).Article 1: In order to give full play to the functions of the administrative reconsideration system in the settlements of administrative disputes, the building of a government ruled by law, and the structuring of a harmonious socialist society, this Regulation has been made in accordance with the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China (the “Administrative Reconsideration Law”).However, it is observed that the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration in settling such disputes remains inconspicuous.TheAdministrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China(2014 Amendment)established administrative litigation as a legal mechanism for “settling administrative disputes.”②The Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China (2014 Amendment).Article 1: To ensure the impartial and timely trial of administrative cases by the people’s courts, settle administrative disputes, protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, and oversee administrative agencies’ exercise of power according to the law, this Law is developed in accordance with the Constitution.Since then, it has become unequivocally evident that administrative litigation serves as the primary means for settling such disputes.In order to enhance the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation in settling administrative disputes, theAdministrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China(2017 Revision) has established a “double-defendant” administrative litigation system that consists of both the original administrative conduct bodies and reconsideration bodies.Furthermore, it introduces a system where the persons in charge of administrative bodies are required to attend court proceedings to respond to lawsuits, aiming to ensure the proper functioning of the administrative reconsideration process and enhance efficiency in administrative trials through judicial means.However, the effect of these two systems on the substantive settlement of administrative disputes remains inconspicuous,and the administrative reconsideration bodies are overwhelmed with lawsuits, hindering their ability to enhance the quality of administrative reconsideration.On February 5, 2020,at the third meeting of the Commission for Law-based Governance under the CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, stressed that we should effectively implement the reform plan for the administrative reconsideration system,with a focus on optimizing the allocation of administrative reconsideration resources.In addition, efforts should be made to promote the revision of relevant laws and regulations while fully leveraging the fair and efficient nature of the administrative reconsideration system as a convenient and major channel for settling administrative disputes.③On February 5, 2020, the Commission for Law-based Governance under the CPC Central Committee held its third meeting, during which Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, explicitly emphasized the importance of utilizing the inherent advantages of the administrative reconsideration system as a primary means for resolving administrative disputes in terms of its fairness, efficiency, and convenience.This further confirmed the significant role of administrative reconsideration in settling administrative disputes.On April 18 of the same year, the Commission for Law-based Governance under the CPC Central Committee issued theReform Plan for the Administrative Reconsideration System.The plan sets forth specific provisions regarding the overall requirements, steps, and measures for reforming the administrative reconsideration system, as well as corresponding work requirements, thereby establishing an institutional foundation for resolving administrative disputes through administrative reconsideration.The Plan to Build the Rule of Law in China(2020–2025), issued by the CPC Central Committee in January 2021, clearly emphasizes the need for strengthening and improving administrative reconsideration efforts, enhancing the supervisory role of administrative reconsideration, and rectifying illegal and improper administrative acts.It sets higher standards for the substantive settlements of administrative disputes through administrative reconsideration.Subsequently, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council promulgatedThe Outline for Building a Law-Based Government(2021–2025).This outline once again highlights the importance of fully utilizing administrative reconsideration as the primary channel for settling administrative disputes and calls for enhancing mechanisms for substantively settling administrative disputes and promoting the governance of litigation sources, which has expanded the scope of the substantive settlements of administrative disputes.While promoting the reform of administrative reconsideration, the country has introduced reform measures for the system where the persons in charge of administrative bodies are required to attend court proceedings to respond to lawsuits, which serves as a main means of settling administrative disputes through administrative litigation.On June 23, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court issued theProvisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Appearance of the Persons in Charge of Administrative Agencies in Court to Respond to Lawsuit.These provisions aim to underscore the significance of the presence of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court proceedings for addressing lawsuits and establishing detailed guidelines regarding the scope, procedural requirements,conduct during court proceedings, and accountability for failure to appear.So far, the substantive settlements of administrative disputes have officially become the main goal of administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation.

In 2020, Weiyuan county in Sichuan province implemented a demonstration and pilot project on law-based governance in the county, effectively facilitating the substantive settlements of administrative disputes, and some measures it adopted have yielded positive outcomes.The purpose of this paper is to analyze the comprehensive efforts made by the county in practicing the substantive settlements of administrative disputes and subsequently propose effective strategies for achieving the goal.

Connotation, Significance, and Criteria for Substantive Settlements of Administrative Disputes

The term “substantive settlements of administrative disputes” refers to a situation where a certain administrative dispute has been impartially settled within the legal dispute settlements system, with all parties agreeing with the results of judgment and the dispute being officially concluded.This, in essence, signifies the harmonization of both legal and factual aspects in addressing administrative disputes, embodying the pursuit of substantive settlements of administrative disputes after adjudication and the designation of owner rights for dispute settlement (Xu, 2021, pp.30–42).Administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation serve as the formal channels to settle administrative disputes.The substantive settlements of administrative disputes mainly highlight the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration in settling such disputes.Here, “effectiveness” underscores its role in assisting the substantive settlements of administrative disputes (Lian, 2021, pp.43–56).This can be achieved by fully utilizing the comprehensive administrative power of the reconsideration bodies as superior supervisory bodies in the administrative system, leveraging the coordination advantages of high-level leaders, and directly addressing the real needs of applicants by promptly and efficiently mobilizing various administrative resources.By doing so, various deep-rooted problems that lead to administrative disputes can be effectively settled, thus achieving substantive settlement of such disputes (Cao, 2020, pp.168–187).Therefore, it is essential to establish administrative reconsideration as the primary means of resolving disputes in order to achieve substantive settlement of administrative disputes.

Substantive settlement of administrative disputes embody adherence to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the comprehensive implementation of the spirit of the 19th National Congress of the CPC as well as other meetings such as the second, third, fourth, and fifth plenary sessions of the 19th CPC Central Committee.Furthermore, it represents a feasible attempt to earnestly implement the major plans of the central government for overall law-based governance and practice to apply Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law and its corresponding approaches to guide and improve the modern governance system and its capacity.It serves as an effective model that integrates diverse approaches to dispute settlement and the governance of the litigation process at its source.

The substantive settlement of administrative disputes involves the following three criteria: firstly, the administrative case has been adjudicated or concluded; secondly,the contradiction between the administrative counterpart and the administrative body has been effectively resolved; and thirdly, both the administrative body and the public can consciously adjust their behavior in accordance with reconsideration decisions or court rulings (Zhang, 2014, pp.148–151).The key indicators for evaluating the substantive settlement of administrative disputes include the rate of rectification through administrative reconsideration in response to unlawful administrative acts, the rate of litigation following unsatisfactory administrative reconsideration, the rate of lost cases in administrative reconsideration, the closure rate through administrative reconciliation and mediation, as well as any instances of retrial or petition in litigated cases.

Practical Evidence Regarding Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes

Weiyuan county has undertaken the task of substantive settlement of administrative disputes by focusing on promoting institutional improvement, institutionalizing working mechanisms, and establishing and improving a series of supporting measures.In particular, the county places more emphasis on ensuring the response quality of the persons in charge of administrative bodies to lawsuits when in court.In this way, the county has made significant achievements in the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.In this paper, the effectiveness of the substantive settlement of administrative disputes in Weiyuan county is verified by referencing the measuring criteria and other relevant factors.The substantive settlement of administrative disputes in Weiyuan county are mainly reflected in its efforts to improve the quality of administrative reconsideration and the effectiveness of administrative litigation.

Significant Improvement in the Quality of Administrative Reconsideration

The Rate of Rectification Through Administrative Reconsideration in Response to Unlawful Administrative Acts Exhibits a Substantial Surge

Figure 1 The Effect of Administrative Reconsideration in Tectifying Unlawful Administrative Acts

The role of administrative reconsideration in rectifying unlawful administrative acts is reflected in the revocation of decisions made through administrative adjudication,confirmation of unlawful administrative acts, and order to retrial, among others.The effectiveness of administrative reconsideration in rectifying unlawful administrative acts is measured by the ratio between the number of cases where administrative reconsideration s u c c e s s f u l l y r e c t i f i e s u n l a w f u l administrative acts and the total number of u n law f ul ad m i n ist rat ive cases(including both cases settled through administrative reconsideration and those remaining lost after reconsideration).Taking Weiyuan county’s handling of administrative reconsideration cases from 2018 to 2021 as an example, a total of 14 applications for administrative reconsideration were received in 2018, with a rectification rate of only 60 percent.In 2019, this rate further declined to merely 50 percent.In 2020, a total of 25 applications for administrative reconsideration were received, with a rectification rate of 100 percent.As of 2021, nine applications for administrative reconsideration have been received, with two original administrative acts being revoked, one confirmed as illegal, and one pending conclusion.All administrative decisions have taken effect smoothly without any subsequent litigation filed.The rectification rate for unlawful administrative acts remains at 100 percent,demonstrating a more significant effect of the substantive settlements of administrative disputes.The Loss Rate of Administrative Cases Significantly Decreased After Reconsideration

Table 1 Statistics on Administrative Reconsideration in Rectifying Unlawful Administrative Acts in Weiyuan County (2018–2021)

The loss rate of administrative cases after reconsideration in Weiyuan county has witnessed a significant decrease from 2018 to 2021 (see Table 2 and Figure 2).In 2018,the county witnessed the initiation of three administrative litigation cases subsequent to administrative reconsideration, of which two were revoked by the Weiyuan County People’s Court, resulting in a loss rate of 66 percent.In 2019, a total of 15 administrative reconsideration cases were filed for administrative litigation, out of which two administrative reconsideration decisions were revoked by the Weiyuan County People’s Court.Consequently, the loss rate decreased to 13.33 percent, indicating a significant enhancement in the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration.In 2020,the county saw the submission of only one administrative reconsideration case for administrative litigation,which was subsequently dismissed by the Weiyuan County People’s Court.As a result, there was a zero-loss rate and a 100 percent win rate, indicating significant enhancements in the quality of administrative reconsideration.From 2021 to the present day, none of the eight administrative reconsideration cases handled have been filed for administrative litigation, indicating the stable quality of administrative reconsideration.

Table 2 Statistics on the Trial of Administrative Litigation Cases Subsequent to Administrative Reconsideration in Weiyuan County (2018–2021)

Figure 2 Loss Rate of Cases Through Administrative Reconsideration in Weiyuan County (2018–2021)

Administrative Reconsideration Reconciliation and Mediation Have Yielded Initial Results

Reconciliation and mediation are effective means of resolving administrative disputes during administrative reconsideration, which can achieve the goal of substantive settlement of such disputes.The absence of explicit provisions in theAdministrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of Chinaregarding the utilization of reconciliation and mediation in administrative reconsideration procedures has led to cautiousness among reconsideration bodies when it comes to employing these methods.This has posed difficulties for conciliation and mediation to contribute to administrative reconsideration effectively.In an effort to achieve the substantive settlement of administrative disputes, Weiyuan county has taken bold initiatives to incorporate reconciliation and mediation into its administrative reconsideration process while upholding a people-centered approach in implementing its work.In 2021, the county successfully settled an administrative dispute case through reconciliation.During the process of reconciliation, the respondent acknowledged that their previous administrative act was improper and promptly withdrew it to prevent any further adverse impact on the applicant.The approach not only timely and effectively safeguarded the applicant’s legitimate rights and interests but also alleviated the grievances of the applicant against the respondent, resulting in a satisfactory settlement of the case without resorting to litigation.

Significant Effect of Administrative Litigation

The substantive settlement of administrative disputes in administrative litigation is demonstrated in two aspects: the reduction in the litigation loss rate of administrative bodies and the increase in the closure rate through reconciliation and mediation.

First, the loss rate of administrative litigation has decreased significantly.According to the data on the lost administrative litigation in Weiyuan county from 2018 to 2021 (refer to Table 3 and Figure 3), it can be observed that in 2018, the People’s Court of the county received a total of 96 administrative litigation cases, out of which only 14 cases were ruled as failed.Excluding the 49 housing registration cases, the overall litigation loss rate of administrative bodies reached approximately 25.6 percent.In 2019, the court received a total of 51 administrative litigation cases, of which nine cases were ruled as failed,with the loss rate of administrative bodies being 17.7 percent.In 2020, the court received 26 administrative litigation cases, of which only one was ruled as failed, resulting in the loss rate of administrative bodies being only 3.85 percent, representing a decrease of over 20 percentage points from that recorded in 2018.From 2021 to the present (until the end of September), the court has received a total of seven administrative litigation cases.Among them, three cases have been dismissed, two cases have been withdrawn by the plaintiff after reconciliation and mediation, and the remaining two cases are pending judgment.Currently, there are no instances of lost litigation.The data on the lost administrative litigation disclosed by the Weiyuan County People’s Court shows that the loss rate was high before 2020 but declined significantly in 2020 and thereafter.This indicates a gradual improvement in the administrative bodies’ awareness of performing their administration duties according to law and the ability to settle administrative disputes.

Table 3 Statistics on the Handling of Administrative Litigation by The People’s Court of Weiyuan County (2018–2021)(Unit: Cases)

Figure 3 Statistics of Weiyuan County People’s Court in Dealing With Administrative Proceedings (2018–2021)

Second, the closure rate through reconciliation and mediation has increased significantly.The closure of cases through reconciliation and mediation pertains to situations where potential administrative violation cases arise, in which the Weiyuan County People’s Court engages in reconciliation and mediation, and the administrative body proactively rectifies any unlawful administrative acts while the plaintiff voluntarily applies for case withdrawal.The closure rate through reconciliation and mediation, therefore,represents the proportion of the total number of lost cases and cases closed through reconciliation and mediation in practical judgments to the number of cases successfully resolved through reconciliation and mediation.The data presented in Table 3 and Figure 3 demonstrates that the closure rate through reconciliation and mediation in the Weiyuan County People’s Court witnessed a significant increase from 29.5 percent in 2018 to an impressive 71 percent in 2019.Furthermore, by the year 2020,the closure rate had reached a high level of 90 percent, with a majority of cases being resolved through effective reconciliation and mediation processes.Since 2021, the county has witnessed the closure of two cases through reconciliation and mediation, achieving a flawless closure rate of 100 percent.

The increased closure rate through reconciliation and mediation in administrative litigation reflects the continuous enhancement of positive interactions between judicial and administrative bodies, the increased proactive efforts from both administrative and judicial bodies to effectively resolve administrative disputes, and the growing legal and social impact resulting from successful case settlement.Closure of cases through reconciliation and mediation will contribute to the effective settlement of administrative disputes.By utilizing these methods, the administrative counterpart’s appeal can be promptly addressed, ensuring timely protection of their rights and remedies.As a result, it will effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the counterpart.Meanwhile, the process of reconciliation and mediation can assist administrative bodies in promptly rectifying unlawful administrative acts or fulfilling their administrative obligations, thereby preventing further harm to the counterpart.This not only upholds the principle of administrative efficiency but also effectively safeguards the rights of the counterpart, urging administrative bodies to perform their duties in accordance with the law.This approach will create a favorable legal environment for establishing a rule of law government.Moreover, the process of conciliation and mediation can effectively decrease the likelihood of the applicant resorting to administrative litigation, thereby mitigating subsequent social risks arising from such litigation.

Paths for Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes

Drawing on the successful experience of Weiyuan county in administrative dispute settlements reform, there is a need to promote substantive settlement of administrative disputes from the following aspects.

Institutional Guarantee: Standardizing the Implementation of Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes

A robust and well-designed system is essential to ensure the continuous advancement of administrative work, particularly in implementing substantive settlement of disputes.Therefore, it is imperative to establish a comprehensive framework that promotes standardization and normalization of the procedure.First, it is necessary to establish an effective mechanism for settling administrative disputes and clearly define specific measures for their settlements.For example, the Bureau of Justice of Weiyuan County, in collaboration with the People’s Procuratorate of Weiyuan County, Neijiang, has formulated theMeasures for Implementation of Jointly Promoting the Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes in Weiyuan County(hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”).TheMeasureshas successfully established an efficient communication channel among the court, procuratorate, and bureau of justice.It requires timely communication between the three parties involved during the handling process of administrative cases by leveraging their respective strengths.Moreover, it places equal emphasis on providing support, supervision, and protection to facilitate a synergistic approach toward promoting the substantive settlements of administrative disputes.Second, it is necessary to establish a linkage mechanism for the mediation of administrative disputes.The functional advantages of judicial administrative departments should be fully utilized to effectively integrate systems regarding people’s mediation, administrative mediation,and judicial mediation systems into the settlements of administrative disputes, thereby addressing disputes at the source.Third, it is necessary to establish a joint conference system participated by the local government, court, and procuratorate.For instance, in accordance with the requirements of building a law-based governance system that involves the participation of the local government, court, and procuratorate, Weiyuan county has introduced theInter-Ministerial Joint Meeting System for Administrative Reconsideration and Administrative Trial in Weiyuan County.The primary goal of this system is to provide updates on the progress of the administrative enforcement, administrative reconsideration,administrative trial, and non-litigation administrative cases, coordinate and solve key and difficult issues that may arise during these processes, as well as study major and complex disputes arising from these processes, thereby promoting the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.

Mechanism Guarantee: Making Administrative Reconsideration the Main Channel for Settling Administrative Disputes

First, improving the working mechanism for administrative reconsideration.This can be achieved through the following steps.The first is to enhance the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration in rectifying unlawful administrative acts to facilitate the effective implementation of administrative reconsideration decisions.For example,Weiyuan county has established a self-rectification notification system for unlawful administrative acts.In case an administrative body fails to rectify or improve such acts, the Bureau of Justice of the county will notify such acts quarterly or make prompt on-site notification.Under the supervision of this notification system, since 2020, the administrative bodies of Weiyuan county have been proactively rectifying their unlawful administrative acts and diligently implementing administrative reconsideration decisions,thereby gradually restoring the government’s credibility.The second is to expand the channels for accepting administrative reconsideration applications.It is necessary to establish a dedicated administrative reconsideration acceptance window within the people’s government to facilitate the general public in their pursuit of administrative reconsideration.This can be achieved by leveraging grassroots judicial offices for administrative reconsideration publicity and consultation while also setting up collection sites for administrative reconsideration materials in these offices so that the public can file applications more conveniently.At the same time, it is crucial to facilitate the online handling of administrative reconsideration cases.The third is to broaden the scope of administrative reconsideration cases, ensuring that administrative disputes are promptly settled at the grassroots level and nipped in the bud.It is imperative to collect as many administrative dispute cases as possible in order to effectively safeguard the legitimate interests underlying the legal appeals of the masses.The fourth is to strengthen the credibility of administrative reconsideration decisions.The persuasiveness of the administrative reconsideration decisions should be strengthened, and the publicity of the implemented administrative reconsideration decisions should be increased.Further efforts should be made to enhance the transparency of administrative reconsideration procedures,strengthen the role of reconsideration cases in legal publicity and education, and establish a “smart reconsideration” system, thereby promoting the efficient, intelligent, and convenient handling of administrative reconsideration cases.The fifth is to facilitate the settlement of civil disputes through administrative reconsideration and maximize the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration in governance.The reconsideration body shall, during the process of handling administrative disputes involving civil matters,inform the counterpart about legal rights protection and relief channels through alternative means while also providing legal advice for their civil litigation, thereby facilitating the settlement of civil disputes.In addition, it is necessary to promote the institutionalization of relevant measures to provide institutional guarantees for the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.

Second, improving the supporting mechanism for the substantive settlement of administrative disputes through administrative reconsideration.As an internal rectification system and a remedy system for protecting the rights of the counterpart within administrative bodies, administrative reconsideration can effectively settle administrative disputes at the grassroots level and curb them at the source.This includes the following three aspects.The first is to improve the assessment mechanism for lawbased governance.The implementation of administrative reconsideration work should be taken as an important indicator for the building of a law-based government.During this process, relevant bodies should, in accordance with the requirements of relevant documents such as theProvisions on the Building of a Law-Based Government and the Implementation of Accountability in Inspection Work, promptly conduct interviews with underperforming and error-prone administrative staff members, instruct them to rectify their acts without delay and issue a notice of criticism for their misconduct.This will ensure the smooth functioning of the administrative reconsideration process and enhance efficiency in administrative trials through judicial means.The second is to establish and improve the coordination mechanism.Administrative reconsideration bodies should establish a coordination mechanism with other government departments,enhance risk early warning capabilities, and provide timely legal opinions and suggestions for the administration of government departments.They should also regularly conduct theoretical discussions, collaborative research, and other activities to carefully examine the fundamental issues that exist in the administrative reconsideration process, as well as the prominent and challenging issues of wide social concern.By analyzing and addressing administrative reconsideration cases from a political and holistic perspective, they can achieve the harmonious integration of political, legal, and social impacts resulting from the settlement of administrative disputes.The third is to standardize the administrative law enforcement behavior and enhance the effectiveness of substantive settlement of administrative disputes.To be more specific, it is imperative to comprehensively implement the administrative law enforcement publication system,the recording system of law enforcement in the whole process, and the legal review system of major law enforcement decisions.Additionally, it is crucial to establish a regular training program for law enforcement personnel and actively address the outstanding issues in administrative law enforcement that cause the most dissatisfaction among the people.Efforts should also be made to rigorously enforce the accountability system for administrative law enforcement and conduct thorough investigations into the accountability of relevant personnel involved in unlawful administrative acts confirmed by administrative reconsideration bodies in order to facilitate the promotion of lawful administration.

As one of the three official channels for seeking administrative remedies,administrative reconsideration exhibits a higher level of institutionalization and procedural formality compared to petitioning.“Handling public complaints and proposals (PCPs),as a channel for the Party and the government to maintain close communication with the people, encompasses functions such as political participation, democratic supervision,and protection of rights and interests.However, it lacks institutional advantages in effectively settling administrative disputes” (Wang, 2021, pp.19–32).The judicial nature of administrative litigation inherently leads to an excessive emphasis on procedural protection while less on efficiency and substantive effect.Moreover, “administrative litigation not only results in a scarcity of judicial resources but also hinders the effective protection of the rights and interests of individuals due to the high costs and lengthy duration involved” (Ma, 2021, pp.68–70).The administrative reconsideration process possesses a range of institutional advantages, including procedural efficiency, professional expertise, and fast accessibility.This enables it to address administrative disputes that are closely linked to social stability in a more timely and effective manner while also better catering to the need for the substantive settlement of such disputes.It can promptly resolve administrative disputes at the grassroots level, right from their arising and within the administrative system, thereby preventing them from escalating into significant social risks due to prolonged dispute settlement chains.Consequently, it facilitates effective social governance (Wang, 2021, pp.1932).“Administrative reconsideration should not only ensure the impartial settlement of administrative disputes but also prioritize efficiency” (Zhou, 2021, pp.17–29).Through a series of measures aimed at enhancing the internal mechanism of administrative reconsideration, Weiyuan county has effectively enhanced the quality and effectiveness of administrative reconsideration.The number of administrative reconsideration cases has consistently increased, while the number of administrative litigation cases in court has decreased.Moreover, there has been a rapid decline in the loss rate of cases after administrative reconsideration, which ensures and promotes the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.Consequently,administrative reconsideration has gradually evolved into the primary channel for resolving such disputes.

Effect Guarantee: Leveraging the Leading Role of the Persons in Charge of Administrative Bodies in Attending Court Proceedings to Respond to Lawsuits

The effective trial of administrative litigation is an essential prerequisite for achieving the substantive settlement of administrative disputes during administrative litigation.It can be measured by the efficiency, effect, and effectiveness of administrative trials.In addition to the requirements for trial personnel, the presence of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in the courtroom,as well as the quality of their response,are also of critical importance.The presence of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in the courtroom to respond to lawsuits has been widely praised as “a guiding light for the establishment of a law-based government” and “a wise approach to resolving social conflicts” (Zhang, 2014, pp.148–151).This mechanism has a significant effect on the substantive settlement of administrative disputes and the reestablishment of judicial credibility.The remarkable results made by Weiyuan county in dealing with administrative litigation are directly attributed to the implementation of such a mechanism.Since 2017, Weiyuan county has witnessed a 100 percent attendance rate of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court to respond to the lawsuit, which has significantly improved the quality of court proceedings (see Table 4 and Figure 4).First, the attendance rate in court and the response rate have been consistently increasing.In 2015, the situation where the persons in charge of administrative bodies attended court proceedings to respond to the lawsuits only appeared twice, resulting in a court attendance rate of merely 33.33 percent.However, by 2016, the figure increased to 13 with an improved attendance rate of 68.42 percent, which was double that of the previous year.Since 2017, the persons in charge of administrative bodies have consistently achieved a perfect court attendance and response rate of 100 percent, exemplifying their commitment to active participation in administrative litigation.Second, the quality of court attendance and response has been continuously improving.The attendance rate of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court had been steadily increasing prior to 2019.However, their presence failed to yield any significant impact as they typically maintain a passive role during court proceedings.The response rate of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court proceedings was 76.19 percent in 2019.In cases pertaining to people’s livelihoods, such as planning, labor, and social security, the persons in charge of administrative bodies not only proactively attended court proceedings to respond to the lawsuit but also actively engaged in in-court discussions and after-court intercession,striving for the substantive settlement of administrative disputes while effectively settling factual disputes involving the administrative counterpart.Since 2020, it has become normal for the persons in charge of administrative bodies to proactively attend court proceedings and actively participate in administrative mediation efforts.As a result, a significant number of administrative disputes have been settled through mediation or reconciliation, effectively achieving the goal of dispute settlement and promoting efficient administration of justice.

Table 4 Statistics of the Persons in Charge of Administrative Bodies Proactively Attending Court Proceedings to Respond to Lawsuits (2015–2021)

Figure 4 Statistics of Heads of Administrative Bodies Proactively Attending Court Proceedings to Respond to Lawsuits (2015–2021)

The practical experience of Weiyuan county in effectively handling administrative litigation primarily lies in harnessing the exemplary leadership role of the persons in charge of administrative bodies attending court proceedings proactively to respond to lawsuits.“The presence of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court to respond to lawsuits demonstrates the litigation concept of ‘equal litigation rights for all parties involved’ and ‘procedural justice in trial procedures.’ This reflects the administrative body’s respect for the law, the court, and the plaintiff and plays a positive role in promoting the substantive settlement of administrative disputes, timely identifying issues in administrative acts, enhancing awareness of the rule of law within administrative bodies, as well as improving their ability and level of lawful administration” (Cao, 2019,pp.148–153).It also serves as a valuable source of psychological solace for the counterpart involved in administrative disputes, which is conducive to alleviating the contradiction between the government and the people.Moreover, the practice has a significant impact on the substantive settlement of administrative disputes and the enhancement of judicial credibility, which can be observed from the following aspects: Firstly, it contributes to fostering a stronger rule-of-law mindset among leading cadres.The practice has shown that it is more effective for the persons in charge of administrative bodies to personally attend court proceedings to respond to lawsuits rather than attempting to study law independently multiple times.Engaging in face-to-face debates with the plaintiff in court can assist leading cadres in cultivating a robust legal mindset of “handling affairs in accordance with the law, seeking law-based solutions in case of trouble, solving problems,and settling disputes in accordance with the law.” Secondly, it can assist in developing the ability of leading cadres to study and utilize the law effectively.The intense courtroom debate necessitates the competent ability of the persons in charge attending court proceedings to effectively respond to lawsuits utilizing their legal expertise, thereby promptly stimulating their enthusiasm for studying, comprehending, and applying the law.The landscape of administrative affairs is constantly evolving, and the intricate nature of administrative laws renders it challenging for personnel within administrative bodies,including leaders, to fully comprehend all the content of relevant laws and regulations.By actively engaging in administrative litigation trials, relevant personnel can gain a handson learning experience that enhances their ability to effectively administer in accordance with the law.Thirdly, it will effectively promote reconciliation and mediation in administrative disputes.Due to the decision-making authority held by leaders, the persons in charge of administrative bodies can leverage a unique advantage in reconciliation and mediation efforts.They can promptly address plaintiffs’ doubts during trials and alleviate their antagonistic emotions.More importantly, this authority holds significant influence over the evaluation and determination of compensation issues, thereby facilitating the effective settlement of administrative disputes (Li, 2019, pp.95–103).

The following are several approaches to enhancing the quality of the persons in charge attending court proceedings to respond to lawsuits.The first is to establish a court presence and response notification system for the persons in charge of administrative bodies, aiming to enhance their efficiency in responding to court matters.For example,the Bureau of Justice of Weiyuan County quarterly discloses the presence and response of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court proceedings and analyzes the impact of their presence and response, thereby guiding administrative bodies in strengthening and improving their operations and encouraging the proactive engagement of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court proceedings.Since 2020, it has become normal for the persons in charge of administrative bodies in Weiyuan county to attend court proceedings to respond to lawsuits, which is inseparable from the abovementioned notification system.The second is to improve the capacity of the persons in charge of administrative bodies to effectively respond to lawsuits, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of their responses in court.Efforts should be made to provide training on court response and trial skills for the persons in charge of administrative bodies,enabling them to acquire comprehensive knowledge of administrative litigation and become well-versed in trial rules and procedures.Additionally, it is crucial to regularly select representative cases in order to facilitate the participation of administrative and law enforcement officials in activities such as trial observation and case analysis,thereby enhancing their capacity to effectively respond to the lawsuit in the courtroom.The third is to improve the assessment mechanism for the response effectiveness of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in the court.It is imperative to incorporate the attendance of the persons in charge of administrative bodies in court proceedings as an administrative assessment indicator for ensuring lawful administration and a crucial aspect of establishing a law-based government and implementing an accountability system.Measures such as implementing regular assessments and notifications, as well as strengthening supervision and inspections, should also be adopted to encourage the persons in charge of administrative bodies to enhance their response effectiveness when attending court proceedings.

Multiple Approaches to Settling Administrative Disputes: Enhancing the Value of Grassroots Departments in the Source Governance of Administrative Disputes

Systematization of Mediation Organizations

This can be achieved through the following steps.The first is to promote the systematization of mediation institutions.For example, Weiyuan county has established a county-level administrative mediation guidance center, which operates under the supervision of the county’s Bureau of Justice, with the director of the Bureau of Justice also serving as the director of the center.The center regularly receives reports on the county’s administrative mediation work and studies, coordinates, and resolves issues existing in the field of administrative mediation to provide better guidance for countylevel administrative mediation work.Dedicated conflict and dispute mediation rooms should be established within administrative bodies, where specialized administrative mediation personnel should be appointed to investigate, mediate, and report on conflicts and disputes.This proactive approach aims to effectively address the underlying causes of administrative disputes and resolve emerging or escalating issues at an early stage.The second is to promote the integration among multiple mediation subjects.Multiple mediation subjects, such as judicial administrative bodies, people’s courts, and people’s procuratorates, should be integrated to form a robust framework for administrative dispute settlements.Moreover, it is necessary to fully leverage the administrative inspection and supervision functions of the people’s procuratorates.Prior to the initiation of administrative reconsideration proceedings, the administrative reconsideration bodies should proactively collaborate with relevant departments to intervene in and manage potential administrative disputes at their inception stage, ensuring effective source control.The people’s courts should actively establish contact with reconsideration bodies and provide them with an assessment of the case’s risk level for administrative litigation cases accepted without reconsideration, enabling timely supervision over administrative violations.In cases where consultation or preparation for filing administrative cases is underway, the court should promptly communicate with the reconsideration bodies about reasons for not proceeding to litigation, allowing them to actively intervene in unresolved administrative disputes that cannot be resolved through litigation.This ensures a coordinated approach between litigation and reconsideration, effectively resolving administrative disputes.If the administrative body subsequently finds that the administrative act involved is evidently unlawful and that the internal error correction procedure fails to resolve the dispute, it may proactively engage with the judicial administrative body and court.The judicial administrative body and court can then intervene in advance to facilitate timely reconciliation or mediation, thereby resolving the administrative dispute.Of course, the counterpart of administrative disputes is entitled to choose either administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation for dispute settlement or to seek third-party mediation through administrative reconsideration bodies.

Diverse Measures for Dispute Settlement

First, preventative measures should be taken to mitigate administrative disputes.The prevention of administrative disputes should be incorporated throughout the entire process of administrative activities.Efforts should also be made to improve the scientificity of administrative decision-making and to standardize law enforcement practices in order to effectively prevent the occurrence of such disputes.It is essential to fully leverage the respective advantages of administrative mediation, reconsideration, and litigation in order to establish a long-term mechanism for pre-litigation prevention, inlitigation settlements, and post-litigation governance.This will facilitate the substantive settlement of administrative disputes through a multi-dimensional and holistic approach.Second, non-litigation means should be fully utilized to resolve administrative disputes.Reconciliation and mediation should be maximally employed in administrative reconsideration and litigation, aiming to resolve administrative disputes effectively.Moreover, the government should incorporate the loss rate in administrative lawsuits into its performance evaluation system, thereby encouraging relevant departments to resolve administrative disputes through reconciliation and mediation.Third, the coordination and communication mechanisms among relevant entities should be further improved.Measures such as formulating a “white paper” on administrative trials, seeking judicial recommendations, and implementing suggestions from administrative reconsideration should be adopted to enhance the communication and coordination mechanism for cases undergoing administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation.An informationsharing mechanism should be established to address administrative litigation cases.The reconsideration bodies shall take the initiative in responding to administrative cases,provide early warning of the potential defeat rate of cases, and require the involved organizations to resolve disputes effectively.By comprehensively considering all these factors, cases that have the potential for mediation and reconciliation can be effectively addressed by fully applying relevant laws and regulations, thereby urging all parties involved to reach a consensus and achieve the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.

Improving the Quality of Administrative Law Enforcement Personnel and Reducing Administrative Disputes at the Source

First, it is necessary to intensify the training for law enforcement personnel to elevate their professional competence.Administrative bodies can invite experts from the procuratorate and the court to give lectures.Second, it is necessary to establish an observation system for law enforcement personnel to familiarize themselves with relevant laws and regulations during the court proceedings of administrative litigation cases,with the aim of enhancing their professional competency.Efforts should also be made to organize relevant law enforcement personnel to observe some typical administrative litigation cases (whether wins or losses) so that law enforcement personnel can gain a firsthand understanding of the reasons behind the outcomes.In the event of a typical case where the administrative body loses in a lawsuit, it is imperative to arrange for relevant law enforcement personnel to attend court proceedings for observation.This will enable them to comprehend the reasons behind the loss, for example, whether there was involvement of an inappropriate subject, whether illegal or improper procedures were followed, or whether there was an incorrect application of laws.On-site observation,as an effective way for law popularization, is characterized by its vividness and straightforwardness.Through this way, administrative law enforcement personnel can acquire a profound comprehension of how the ascertainment of facts and accurate application of laws will influence the outcome of administrative acts.Consequently, this will strengthen their adherence to the rule of law during the process of administrative law enforcement.Third, a liability exemption mechanism for administrative staff should be established to enable them to utilize mediation as an effective means of resolving administrative disputes without concerns.This will effectively enhance their enthusiasm for achieving the substantive settlement of such disputes.Administrative bodies and their staff members who actively engage in settling administrative disputes according to law shall be protected by law.In principle, individuals shall not be investigated for legal accountability if the settlement fails or the result is obviously improper, provided that it does not result from intentional acts such as abuse of power, favoritism, malpractice, or gross negligence.

The ultimate objective and potent approach for substantively settling administrative disputes is to prevent the emergence of such disputes at their root.The utilization of multiple approaches to resolving administrative disputes can not only facilitate the identification of the roots of such disputes but also enable the effective integration of legal and social impacts during the settlement of such disputes.