[author]Zhang Zhiyuan
[content]
Interaction between government and court in Chinese administrative litigation
Zhang Zhiyuan,
Professor at East China University of Political Science and Law
Abstract: In the recent 15 years, the development of government-court interaction in the practice of administrative litigation law in China has updated the traditional understanding of the relationship be-tween judicial power and executive power, promoted the functions of the administrative trial system in resolving disputes and supporting and supervising administration. But at the same time, the problem of lack of operational norms also exists. Case-based government-court interaction under the guidance of the concept of trial-oriented and substantive resolution of administrative disputes aims to achieve the judicial goal of dispute resolution. Rule of law-enhancing government-court interaction promoted by the concept of legitimacy bottom line theory and administrative process theory aims to achieve the judicial goal of policy implementation. The continuous growth of this function in the new era not only reflects the response of the courts to changes in social governance policies and the efforts to optimize the judicial environment , but also stems from the need to moderately expand the judicial functions under the guidance of administrative tasks. In order to give full play to the positive function of government-court interaction, China needs to complete the construction of the rule of law in terms of the application of jurisprudential hermeneutic, the openness of process and the effectiveness of relief, so as to better transform the advantages of the administrative trial system with Chinese characteristics into the effectiveness of state governance.
Key Words: government-court interaction, optimization of the judicial environment, substantive resolution of administrative disputes, administrative trial system with Chinese characteristics
Introduction
The relationship between judicial power and administrative power is not only the main thread that runs through administrative litigation activities, but also the window for observing the direction of the administrative litigation system. The promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law in 1989 is regarded as a milestone in the process of China's rule of law, as it marked the formal establishment of China's judicial review system. In the 1990s, the guiding ideology for the administrative trial work of the people's courts was to combine "maintenance" and "supervision", and to give equal importance to "support" and "restraint". After entering the 21st century, social transformation has given rise to more social contradictions, and the concept of "development first" has strengthened the administrative led model. In addition, the weak status of judicial power has led to the increasingly embarrassing situation of "difficult filing, difficult trial, and difficult execution" in administrative litigation. Amending the Administrative Litigation Law has almost become a recognized way out of the predicament of the administrative litigation system in academia after "entering the WTO".
Since the issuance of the "Notice on Further Strengthening Administrative Trial Work" by the Supreme People's Court in March 2004, it has adjusted administrative trial policies through various forms such as issuing judicial documents, judicial interpretations, work reports, and convening administrative trial work conferences, and has embarked on a path of "government court interaction" with Chinese local characteristics. In fact, it has developed the relationship between judicial power and administrative power, and has had a profound impact on the development of the administrative trial system. In December 2006, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Notice on Properly Handling Group Administrative Cases", which for the first time used the phrase "enhancing the positive interaction between judiciary and administration"; In April 2007, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Opinions on Strengthening and Improving Administrative Trial Work" (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Trial Opinions"), which specifically elaborated on "establishing a positive interaction mechanism between judiciary and administration"; In June 2009, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Several Opinions on Doing a Good Job in Administrative Trial Work under the Current Situation", which specifically elaborated on "establishing and improving a virtuous interaction mechanism between judiciary and administration"; In March 2014, the annual work report of the Supreme People's Court officially used the phrase "promoting positive interaction between judiciary and administration". After ten years of practical exploration, the interaction between the government and the court has become a normalized mechanism for administrative trials.
When the Administrative Procedure Law was revised in 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress indirectly affirmed the practical results of the court system's interaction between the government and the courts by adding the purpose clause of "resolving administrative disputes", determining the scope of administrative cases to be mediated, and clarifying the obligation of the heads of administrative organs to appear in court. In the following five years, the interaction between the government and the court continued to lead the development of the administrative trial system through statements such as "promoting substantive resolution of administrative disputes" and "optimizing the external environment of administrative trials", which were reflected in the annual work report of the Supreme People's Court, the special report on administrative trial work, and the "Five Five Year Reform Outline" of the People's Court. In June 2019, the Third Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court held a joint symposium on resolving administrative disputes among five provinces (cities) in East China in Shanghai, sending a strong signal that administrative trial work continues to promote interaction between the government and the court.
In terms of the essence of the system, good administrative litigation requires "adjustment of the relationship between judiciary and administration and reconstruction of the state power structure" to be achieved. As an interactive activity between the people's courts and administrative agencies in the process of performing their duties both inside and outside of administrative litigation, the interaction between the government and the court is a system creation rooted in China's local administrative trial practice, indicating the transformation of the relationship between judicial and administrative powers in the field of administrative litigation and the shift of the administrative trial mode. The emergence and development of the interaction between the government and the court reflect the difficult operation of China's administrative trial system during the period of social transformation and the persistent practical exploration of the people's courts. It should become a key to understanding the administrative litigation system with Chinese characteristics. In the process of comprehensively promoting the rule of law, the administrative litigation system, as an important benchmark for measuring a country's level of legal development and social civilization, will play an increasingly important role. According to the decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee, ensuring the correct exercise of administrative, supervisory, judicial, and prosecutorial powers in accordance with the law is an important aspect of promoting the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Properly handling the relationship between judicial and administrative powers is also an important aspect of ensuring the correct exercise of executive, supervisory, judicial, and prosecutorial powers in accordance with the law. This article is based on the practical evolution of government court interaction in Chinese administrative litigation in the past fifteen years, revealing its legal basis and applicable space, exploring the standardized path of government court interaction with Chinese characteristics within the legal framework, and hoping to better play the positive role of government court interaction in Chinese administrative trials.
1.The practical evolution of government court interaction in administrative litigation
The interaction between the government and the court in administrative litigation refers to the mutual support and promotion between judicial power and administrative power through communication, coordination, and other interactive activities within and outside of administrative litigation, in the process of fulfilling their respective responsibilities around the trial of administrative cases. Unlike the traditional administrative litigation system that aims to develop the court into a formidable and disliked entity for administrative agencies, the interaction between the government and the court highlights a more positive collaborative relationship between judicial and administrative powers. As an administrative trial concept nurtured by China's local judicial practice, it demonstrates an alternative power operation state that is different from the mainstream concept of judicial power supervising administrative power. In terms of interactive carriers, the interaction between people's courts and administrative agencies should revolve around the trial of administrative cases. In terms of the basis for interaction, although the interaction between the government and the court lacks direct legal basis, it must be based on the legal responsibilities of both parties. In terms of interactive space, the interaction between the government and the court can occur both within and outside of administrative litigation. The interaction within litigation is guided by the people's court's proper resolution of administrative disputes, while the interaction outside litigation is guided by the people's court's extension of administrative trial functions. In terms of interactive functions, government institution interaction includes two types: case handling type and rule of law promotion type. The former refers to the interaction between the people's courts and administrative agencies in resolving specific cases appropriately, including mechanisms such as coordination and resolution, appearing in court to respond to lawsuits, and providing judicial advice; The latter refers to the interaction between the people's courts and administrative agencies in promoting law based administration, including mechanisms such as administrative trial white papers, joint meetings between government and court, and capacity enhancement. Overall, the interaction between the government and the court in contemporary Chinese administrative litigation practice has relied on different approaches before and after the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014.
1.1 Interaction between government and court before the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014
The practice of interactive coordination between the government and the court in the trial of cases can be traced back to the implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law in 1989. In the process of handling the administrative penalty case of Jinglong Company v. Jiangsu Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce, the Supreme People's Court had multiple communications on the understanding of relevant policies, and finally convinced the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to voluntarily revoke the administrative penalty decision, resulting in a satisfactory resolution of the case. The relative systematization of government court interaction began in 2007, marked by the first inclusion of establishing a government court interaction mechanism as one of the tasks to strengthen and improve administrative trial work in the "Administrative Trial Opinions". As the most authoritative, comprehensive, and guiding administrative trial policy document issued by the Supreme People's Court so far, the "Administrative Trial Opinions" have put forward clear requirements for the way, focus, and boundaries of interaction between the government and the court. The formal establishment of the concept of government court interaction in the "Administrative Trial Opinion" stems from profound changes in the social background. The Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China proposed the goal of building a socialist harmonious society and clarified the specific tasks of strengthening judicial guarantees for social harmony. The Central Office and the State Council jointly issued the "Opinions on Preventing and Resolving Administrative Disputes and Improving the Mechanism for Resolving Administrative Disputes", proposing a new judicial concept of "preventing and resolving administrative disputes from the source". On October 25, 2006, a nationwide teleconference on "Strengthening Administrative Trial Work and Properly Handling Administrative Disputes" was held in Beijing. On January 15, 2007, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Several Opinions on Providing Judicial Guarantees for Building a Socialist Harmonious Society", and on March 1, 2007, issued the "Several Opinions on Further Playing the Positive Role of Litigation Mediation in Building a Socialist Harmonious Society" and the "Notice on Further Strengthening Judicial Suggestion Work to Provide Judicial Services for Building a Socialist Harmonious Society". The implementation of these judicial documents and the spirit of the conference has created an atmosphere for the formal proposal of interaction between the government and the court.
The Fifth National Conference on Administrative Trial Work, held on March 27-28, 2007, truly facilitated the issuance of the "Administrative Trial Opinions". Regardless of form or content, this meeting is the highest standard, largest scale, and most effective meeting since the implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law. At the meeting, the then member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Secretary of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission proposed three new standards for measuring administrative trial work, namely "whether administrative disputes have been resolved", "whether public emotions have been straightened out", and "whether social harmony and stability have been promoted"; Furthermore, it is pointed out that "the division of labor between judicial and administrative organs is different, but the goals in implementing national laws and maintaining social harmony and stability are the same, and efforts should be made to achieve a positive interaction between judiciary and administration. The then State Councilor and Secretary General of the State Council requested that administrative agencies at all levels actively support administrative trial work with the correct attitude and practical actions. "Administrative agencies should strengthen communication and interaction with the people's courts, support and coordinate each other, and jointly resolve administrative disputes. The public speech of Party and state leaders supporting administrative trial work has laid the foundation for the interaction between the government and the court to become a new policy for administrative trial.
The implementation of the "Administrative Trial Opinion" made 2007 a truly "turning point" year since the implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law. The Supreme People's Court has successively issued judicial interpretations and documents such as the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Withdrawal of Administrative Litigation", the "Notice on Fully Utilizing the Function of Administrative Trial to Provide Strong Judicial Guarantee for Ensuring and Improving People's Livelihood", the "Notice on Carrying out the" White Paper "Activity of Administrative Trial in Courts Nationwide", the "Several Opinions on Further Implementing the Work Principle of" Prioritizing Mediation and Combining Mediation and Adjudication ", and the" Opinions on Strengthening Judicial Suggestions Work ", and held administrative trial work conferences such as the" Symposium on Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law "and the" Video Conference on Experience Exchange of National Courts Exploring New Mechanisms for Resolving Administrative Disputes ", making every effort to promote the establishment and improvement of a new mechanism for government court interaction with Chinese characteristics. Since 2007, the number of first instance administrative litigation cases in courts across the country has ended a decade long stagnation and steadily increased to over 141000 in 2014. The case coordination and resolution type government court interaction mechanism has played an important role. The coordination and resolution withdrawal rates of courts nationwide in 2006, 2009, and 2011 were 33.82%, 35.9%, and 48%, respectively. This has been included as a major highlight of administrative trial work in the annual work report of the Supreme People's Court. From the "Administrative Trial Opinions" positioning administrative trials as "protecting legitimate rights and interests, promoting law based administration, optimizing the judicial environment, and resolving administrative disputes," to the official inclusion of government court interaction as a feature of administrative trial work in the 2014 work report of the Supreme People's Court, the administrative litigation system has entered a stage where the number of administrative cases and the proportion of coordinated resolution have increased, and supervision of the interaction between administration and government courts has been emphasized.
In the case handling type of interaction between the government and the hospital, coordination and resolution are the most typical and highly questioned. In order to eliminate disputes over the legality of the form of coordinating and resolving cases, the Supreme People's Court has formulated a special judicial interpretation on the withdrawal of lawsuits, which not only avoids the restrictive provision that "mediation is not applicable to the trial of administrative cases", but also provides a normative basis for practical exploration that does not violate the spirit of the law. At the same time, the Supreme People's Court actively attempted to coordinate and resolve individual cases. Since 2004, Hai'an County in Jiangsu Province has fully implemented the practice of administrative officials appearing in court to respond to lawsuits. The "Hai'an Sample" has become one of the major events in the development of China's administrative law over the past 40 years of reform and opening up. Judicial advice materials come from individual case trials and have functional forms such as "judgment guidance type", "judgment supplement type", "dispute prevention type", and "judgment execution type". The interactive mode of promoting the rule of law between the government and the court is mainly stipulated in the "administrative trial opinions", but more from local practical exploration. Since 2004, the third level courts in Shanghai have been the first to issue administrative trial white papers, emphasizing the combination of "unification and separation", "virtual and real combination", "targeted and acceptable combination", and "legal combination", and have embarked on a characteristic path of optimizing the judicial environment, promoting law based administration, and enhancing positive interaction. Since 2000, the Intermediate People's Court of Changzhou City in Jiangsu Province and the Changzhou Municipal Government have taken the lead in establishing a joint meeting system between the government and the court, which has become an important part of promoting the "Jiangsu model" of promoting a virtuous cycle of administrative trial and judicial environment. Since 2004, the People's Court of Wulian County, Shandong Province has taken the lead in establishing an assessment mechanism for administrative litigation cases, which has significantly improved the law enforcement level of administrative agencies. Although the goals of rule of law promotion interaction and case handling interaction are different, they are both extensions of administrative trial functions based on case handling.
Before the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014, the interaction between the government and the court was generally carried out in the absence of direct legal basis. It not only embodies the active exploration of courts in various regions and the strong promotion of the Supreme People's Court, but also reflects the integration of bottom-up and top-down innovation methods within the court system; Moreover, the central and local governments have actively introduced relevant measures, reflecting the positive response of the administrative system to the proactive actions of the judicial system. During this period, the State Council successively issued the "Outline for the Comprehensive Promotion of Law based Administration", "Decision on Strengthening the Law based Administration of Municipal and County Governments", and "Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of a Rule of Law Government". Mechanisms reflecting the concept of government court interaction, such as "consciously accepting judicial supervision", "conscientiously responding to administrative litigation", and "actively cooperating with court trials", were incorporated. Make the interactive practice between the government and the court at this stage distinctive in China, presenting a growth trajectory of "bold local innovation - judicial document assistance - administrative system response".
1.2 Interaction between government and court after the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014
The amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014 directly addressed the "three difficulties" in administrative litigation that have been strongly reflected by society, absorbed useful experience from administrative trial practice, and established a series of practical and targeted response measures. The Supreme People's Court continues to innovate its working methods and guide the promotion of government court interaction in administrative litigation. As a response to the first specialized document issued by the State Council to comprehensively regulate administrative litigation response work, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Notice on Several Issues Concerning Administrative Litigation Response", promoting the appearance of administrative organ heads in court to respond in accordance with the law, and continuously including it as a work highlight in the 2017 and 2018 work reports. On November 2, 2015, the Supreme People's Court made a special report on the work of administrative adjudication at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the first time, focusing on the coordination and resolution rate of administrative cases of first instance, the number of judicial suggestions sent, the number of white papers issued on administrative adjudication and other government court interaction results since 2010. In addition to periodically issuing guiding cases, the Supreme People's Court has also excavated typical cases from the front line of administrative trials across the country, and successively published typical cases in areas such as expropriation and demolition, information disclosure, environmental protection, administrative inaction, economic administration, and administrative agreements, which have attracted widespread attention from all sectors of society.
In the past five years, the interaction between the government and the court in administrative litigation has shown a trend of emphasizing both case handling and rule of law promotion. The two urgent tasks facing administrative trial work are to properly resolve administrative disputes and assist in the construction of a rule of law government. The number of administrative cases accepted by the people's courts in the first instance exceeded 200000 for the first time in 2015, showing a steady increase year by year. In addition, with the reform of the administrative litigation jurisdiction system, the pressure to properly resolve administrative disputes continues to increase. The Decision on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Rule of Law (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Comprehensively Advancing the Rule of Law") passed at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has clarified the strategic task of "adhering to the integrated construction of a rule of law country, a rule of law government, and a rule of law society". As the "main body of a rule of law country", the construction of a rule of law government has entered the fast lane. The General Office of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued the "Regulations on the Responsibilities of the Main Party and Government Leaders in Promoting the Construction of the Rule of Law as the First Responsible Person", which clarifies that the main leaders of local party committees and governments are important organizers, promoters, and practitioners of the construction of the rule of law. The need for external support for the construction of a rule of law government is even more urgent.
Around the goal of substantive resolution of administrative disputes, courts at all levels have carried out flexible and diverse case handling type government court interactions under the guidance of the Administrative Litigation Law. The Shanghai High People's Court has made "deepening the reform of the substantive resolution mechanism for administrative disputes and refining and improving the relevant work norms for coordinating and resolving administrative cases" a key task in administrative trials in 2018. It has taken the lead in issuing the "Implementation Opinions on Further Improving the Substantive Resolution Mechanism for Administrative Disputes", which provides detailed provisions on the specific circumstances and mechanisms for substantive resolution of administrative disputes. In 2019, the High People's Courts of Shanghai, Anhui, and Jilin successively released the "Ten Typical Cases of Substantive Resolution of Administrative Disputes", publicly showcasing the main experiences and typical significance of coordinated resolution. The Supreme People's Court has explicitly mentioned "substantive resolution of administrative disputes" in 29 administrative judgment documents, and in 2019, "promoting substantive resolution of administrative disputes" was included in the annual work report and the People's Court's "Five Year Plan for Reform". The level of administrative officials who appear in court to respond to lawsuits continues to rise, and the then Vice Governor of Guizhou Province and a member of the Party Committee of the China Securities Regulatory Commission set a precedent for provincial and ministerial level leading cadres to appear in court to respond to lawsuits; The number of administrative legislation regulating court appearances and responses is increasing, and the people's governments of Hebei, Guangdong, Fujian, and Jilin provinces have successively issued administrative response regulations. The Shanghai Municipal Government and the Shanghai High People's Court have jointly launched an upgraded version of the "three in one" system for administrative officials to appear in court to respond to lawsuits, which has won the 5th "China Rule of Law Government Award". The judicial suggestions dedicated to substantive resolution of administrative disputes have been widely applied in courts at all levels, achieving a win-win social effect for all parties.
Against the backdrop of significantly accelerated construction of a rule of law government, the interactive mode between the government and the court, which promotes the rule of law, has been exceptionally active in the past five years. Local courts at the third level generally carry out the activity of publishing administrative trial white papers, forming the characteristics of open publishing methods, standardized content data, and accompanying ten typical cases. The administrative case centralized jurisdiction courts such as the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court and the Shanghai Railway Transport Court have sent separate reports on the litigation cases of various district governments, playing the role of a legal "medical examination report". The "province city county" three-level joint conference mechanism pioneered by Fujian Province is continuously transforming into a project-based and list based management approach, and its effectiveness in supporting the construction of a rule of law government is becoming increasingly evident. The mechanism for enhancing capabilities is developing towards standardization and diversification. The failure rate of administrative litigation and the appearance rate of the responsible person of the sued administrative agency have been included in the "Demonstration Index System for the Construction of Rule of Law Government in Cities and Counties" attached to the "Opinions on Carrying out Demonstration Activities for the Construction of Rule of Law Government" issued by the Office of the Central Committee for the Comprehensive Rule of Law. The Shanghai High People's Court, the Office of the Leading Group for the Construction of the Rule of Law Government in Shanghai, and the Shanghai People's Procuratorate jointly signed the "Guiding Opinions on Establishing a Mechanism for the Review and Connection of Administrative Normative Documents in this City" in January 2018, which is the first in the country to establish a mechanism for the review and connection of normative documents that combines pre court suggestions and post supervision. Since 2015, the Supreme People's Court has included "supporting" and "supervising" administrative organs to govern in accordance with the law "in its annual work report for five consecutive years, and" focusing on promoting the construction of a rule of law government and reforming and improving the mechanism of administrative trial work "in the People's Court's" Five Year Reform Outline ".
The practical evolution of government court interaction in administrative litigation shows that the Supreme People's Court has played a crucial role in "high-level promotion". The various effective interactions between local courts and administrative agencies have been preliminarily standardized and systematized after being refined by the Supreme People's Court. Some practical achievements have received support from the highest state power agencies and administrative agencies, further consolidating the normative basis for the interaction between the government and the court.
2. The Legal Basis of Interaction between Government and Court in Administrative Litigation
The rise of government court interaction demonstrates an alternative form of relationship between judicial power and administrative power in administrative litigation, and the development of administrative litigation "comes from the self breakthrough of local courts in the situation opened up by the Supreme People's Court". The continuous promotion of government court interaction in the past five years indicates the court system's adherence to the new policy of administrative adjudication. However, contrary to the official stance of positive recognition, the theoretical community is generally concerned about certain ways of interaction between the government and the court, especially the shrinking judicial supervision function caused by excessive coordination and resolution. The senior judicial officials have long been concerned about the phenomenon of abnormal withdrawal of administrative litigation and the "two highs and four lows" phenomenon, and even corrected it through the deployment of a special activity to centrally manage administrative case appeals and petitions. Given that the Administrative Litigation Law has clearly stipulated that mediation can be applied to some administrative cases, the whole society should understand and respect the practice of courts promoting voluntary reconciliation between the parties through the interaction between the government and the court.
From the judicial statistical data in the past five years, it can be seen that the benefits of the administrative litigation registration system have not been clearly demonstrated. Compared with the massive number of civil cases and administrative law enforcement decisions, the number of first instance administrative cases in China is still rare, and the explosive growth situation may be difficult to achieve for a considerable period of time. Due to factors such as the reform of the jurisdictional system, the coordination and resolution rate of administrative cases has significantly decreased. In Shanghai, a nationally recognized demonstration zone for rule of law construction, the number of first instance administrative cases has continuously decreased in the past two years, and the failure rate of administrative organs has dropped to 3%. These signs indicate that the previous practice of evaluating the performance of administrative trial work based on the number of cases accepted and the failure rate may not be scientific. The ability of the people's courts to resolve administrative disputes and the public's perception of fairness and justice in every administrative case should become the standard for measuring administrative trial work in the new era. Closely related to this is the necessity of implementing the concept of government court interaction in future administrative litigation practice, and its legitimacy is reflected in the following three aspects.
2.1 Judicial response to changes in social governance policies
The administrative litigation system in our country has always progressed in sync with the process of democracy and the rule of law, and has grown together with reform and opening up. In the report of the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, "formulating the Administrative Litigation Law" was one of the important tasks of political system reform, and the report had a direct impact on the rapid promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law in 1989. In the context of the reform of separating party and government, the administrative litigation system carries the mission of exercising judicial power to supervise administrative power. As a Marxist party shouldering the lofty historical mission and leading the people to create the miracle of rapid economic development and long-term social stability, the CPC has always explored the improvement and perfection of the party's leadership and governance in the process of reform and opening up. The revision of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014 began with the deployment of "comprehensively deepening reform" at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, and was completed after the deployment of "comprehensively governing the country according to law" at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee. It carries the mission of promoting the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, strengthening the centralized and unified leadership of the Party has become the fundamental principle of political system reform, and implementing the Party's leadership in all fields, aspects, and links of national governance has become the primary task of adhering to and improving the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. From "adhering to the unified leadership of the Party" to "implementing the separation of Party and government" and "strengthening the comprehensive leadership of the Party", the "Party and government system" on which administrative litigation relies for survival has undergone profound changes. It has achieved a balance between the "political leadership of the ruling Party and the administrative power of government agencies", as well as the unity of "adhering to the Party's absolute leadership over political and legal work" and "ensuring that judicial organs exercise their powers independently and impartially in accordance with the law". In this new type of power relationship network, there is no one-way supervisory and restrictive relationship between judicial power and administrative power. The support and promotion functions of judicial power on administrative power should also be placed in the spectrum of their relationship.
The interaction between the government and the court in the practice of administrative litigation in our country originates from the positive response to the changes in the social governance policies of the ruling party. In the process of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way, the CPC has advanced practical innovation, theoretical innovation and institutional innovation with the times, and has successively put forward the scientific concept of development based on people, comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development and the thought of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, which has become the guiding ideology of the party leaders and the people to carry out a great social revolution. The political conclusion that "building a socialist harmonious society is a continuous process of resolving social contradictions" shows the determination of the CPC to build a harmonious society in improving people's livelihood, resolving contradictions and innovating governance. This major policy change puts forward new requirements for administrative adjudication. The primary task of the judicial system is to resolve disputes. Source governance and systematic governance require the people's courts to change from "settling the case" to "settling the case", and to actively explore new mechanisms for diversified handling to prevent and resolve administrative disputes, providing a legitimate basis for the rise of coordinated resolution style government court interaction. As Takao Hirose once said, "Focusing solely on norms and ignoring the possibility of individuals who are involved in the trial process making behavioral choices in practice cannot truly explore the mechanism of resolving disputes through trial." People's courts and administrative agencies rely on administrative case trials, through information processing, organization, and communication, to bridge differences, enhance harmony, and actively respond to the ruling party's policy proposals for innovative social governance and building a rule of law society. As the legalization of social life outside the system of public power operation, a rule of law society can integrate the achievements of building a rule of law state and government into social life, making the rule of law a observable, perceptible, and knowable state of social life and governance. For a considerable period of time in the future, the people's courts should seize the opportunity of the ruling party's emphasis on the integrated construction of the rule of law, transform the existing institutional advantages into the governance efficiency of government court interaction, and lead the Chinese characteristic administrative trial system onto the path of independent development.
2.2 Strategies for Optimizing the External Environment of Administrative Adjudication
The healthy development of the administrative litigation system cannot be separated from a good judicial environment. This is not only a valuable experience accumulated over the years in China's administrative trial work, but also a true reflection of the difficult operation of the administrative litigation system. In the past twenty years, whether at the National Administrative Trial Work Conference or the Annual Administrative Trial Work Conference of the Supreme People's Court, the "improvement", "optimization", and "creation" of the administrative trial judicial environment have been proposed as important tasks; In the annual work reports of the Supreme People's Court, there are 7 times specifically mentioning the improvement of the judicial environment. Based on the profound understanding that the judicial environment constrains the development of administrative trials, the "Administrative Trial Opinion" not only clarifies "optimizing the judicial environment" as one of the four major tasks for the development of the administrative trial system, but also establishes the "hard optimization" strategy with jurisdiction system reform as the breakthrough point and the "flexible optimization" strategy with government court interaction as the entry point. The Supreme People's Court has taken the issuance of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Jurisdiction of Administrative Cases" as a starting point, making the reform of the jurisdiction system a key move for optimizing the judicial environment and enhancing the credibility of administrative trials within the people's courts. The Notice on Carrying out Pilot Work of Relatively Centralized Jurisdiction over Administrative Cases and the Guiding Opinions on People's Courts' Centralized Jurisdiction over Administrative Cases Across Administrative Regions issued by the Supreme People's Court are effective strategies to further eliminate administrative interference and ensure that people's courts independently exercise their administrative adjudication power in accordance with the law.
The optimization of the administrative trial judicial environment should not only rely on the efforts of the courts themselves, but also be adept at borrowing external forces. Administrative adjudication requires frequent interaction with the government and administrative agencies. Whether it can gain the understanding, trust, and support of administrative agencies is crucial for carrying out administrative adjudication work and improving the judicial environment. Judicial power is an organic component of national political power, and the mainstream political ideology naturally affects the operation of judicial power, which in turn can also have an impact on political organisms. We should dialectically view the relationship between justice and politics, and comprehensively enhance the power of judicial discourse with a more positive attitude. A court with missing or weakened political functions actually has no political status and is unable to shoulder the heavy responsibility of realizing the rule of law, which will inevitably affect the performance of its general judicial functions. People's courts proactively report the situation to the Party committee and report administrative trial work to the National People's Congress, which can find political system support; By utilizing the advantages of individual case trials and actively or upon invitation communicating and exchanging ideas with administrative agencies on issues such as administrative law enforcement and administrative reconsideration, people's courts can not only effectively prevent risks in the exercise of administrative power, but also actively demonstrate their role as "builders" of a rule of law government. The interaction between the government and the court has a subtle effect on optimizing the administrative trial and judicial environment. In the current context of the construction of a rule of law government, the implementation of responsibilities, supervision, and demonstration activities, the administrative trial work of the people's courts is facing important opportunities. We should fully leverage the spillover effects of the interaction between the government and the court, and form a win-win situation of optimizing the judicial environment and enhancing judicial credibility.
2.3 Moderate expansion of judicial functions under the guidance of administrative tasks
When the Administrative Litigation Law was promulgated in 1989, the manifestation of administrative power in China was too single, and the orderly administrative activities centered on public security administrative penalties were prone to infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparties. In addition, in the era of planned economy, the omnipotent government had comprehensive control over the economy and society, and the legislative body chose the administrative litigation system with the aim of prioritizing the protection of citizens' rights and interests. The basic logic of this functional positioning is that the arbitrary exercise of administrative power can easily infringe upon the rights and interests of citizens, and judicial organs that independently exercise judicial power in accordance with the law should achieve judicial relief for citizens' rights and interests by constraining administrative power. The implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law for thirty years coincides with a period of continuous transformation of government functions and changes in administrative activities in China. In the era of administrative states, where administration has transitioned from being the "bearer of the execution process of ruling behavior" to the "political process of determining the formation of national basic policies," the real operational landscape of administrative power, which is the object of judicial power monitoring, has undergone fission: social transformation, economic development, and improvement of people's lives call for active administration, and the concept of "the best government with the least intervention" in the free rule of law has been replaced by the concept of "the best government with the most payment" in the social rule of law. Economic regulation, market supervision, social management, public services, and ecological protection constitute the comprehensive responsibility system for the government to fulfill in accordance with the law in the new era. With the continuous promotion of the reform of streamlining administration, delegating power, combining regulation and optimizing services, the relationships between the government and the market, the government and society, and the government and citizens are gradually being clarified. Compared to direct government intervention, the role of market priority, social autonomy, citizen autonomy, and in-process and post event supervision is more prominent; Compared to the "command obedience" style of deterrent law enforcement, the "negotiation incentive" style of cooperative law enforcement is being promoted and used. In the era of major changes in public administration, the administrative litigation system centered on the legality review of administrative actions and aimed at judicial relief of citizens' rights has faced overall and structural challenges.
Faced with the rise of more proactive administrative activities such as payment administration, regulatory administration, development administration, and environmental administration, the development of administrative law should adhere to a new orientation of administrative tasks. The reason why traditional administrative law has been criticized is because it has failed to pay attention to administrative tasks, or limited administrative tasks to the scope of preventing the dangers of governing the country with free law. Administrative tasks should become a new category of administrative law, and the forms of administrative organizations, specific ways of administrative activities, and the configuration of administrative litigation functions should be reformed based on the principle of "being able to adapt to the expanded form of administrative tasks". The interactive practice of administrative litigation between the government and the court has shaped the "polycentric judicial" orientation of administrative litigation by integrating legitimate demands such as the pressure of the economic system, the requirements of political control, and the public's desire for justice, achieving a preliminary response to the expansion of administrative tasks. The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed that the main contradiction in Chinese society has transformed into the contradiction between the growing needs of the people for a better life and the unbalanced and insufficient development. Building our country into a prosperous, democratic, civilized, harmonious, and beautiful socialist modernized power, and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation "has been included in the Constitution. It is necessary for the administrative litigation system in the new era to further break away from the mechanical resolution of administrative disputes based on the achievements of the interaction between the government and the court, adhere to the orientation of administrative tasks, and moderately expand the function of administrative trials to "realize legitimate rights and interests and ensure the fulfillment of legal obligations", "restore the dignity and authority of the law or ruling order", "avoid or reduce the recurrence of similar conflicts", and truly play the due role of the administrative trial system in the modernization process of national governance.
3. The survival space of government court interaction in administrative litigation
American scholar Damashka distinguishes the operation of legal procedures into "dispute resolution procedures" and "policy implementation procedures" based on the ideal types of "responsive state" and "active state". In a responsive country that takes maintaining social balance as its responsibility, the main goal of the judiciary is to resolve disputes; In an active country committed to transforming society according to political ideals, the main goal of the judiciary is policy implementation. The development of China's administrative litigation system, especially the interactive practice between the government and the court, has largely confirmed Damashka's academic insight of "multi-faceted trial". In the process of transitioning from a control oriented government under a planned economy system to a regulatory oriented government under a market economy system, the national model has undergone a complex transformation of "omnipotent administration limited administration proactive administration". The administrative litigation system, which carries the ideal of rights protection and power supervision, has to shoulder the functions of dispute resolution and policy implementation in social transformation. Administrative judges actually play multiple roles such as "adjudicator", "coordinator", "proposer", "interpreter", "communicator", "educator", etc. The characteristics of "mixed justice" are particularly obvious. For a considerable period of time in the future, China's administrative litigation system as a whole will still be in a state of "selective justice", and there is still ample room for the interaction between the two types of government and court in administrative litigation. The development of different types of interactive activities between the government and the court not only points to specific judicial goals, but also expands the practical functions of administrative trials. Its reasonable use contributes to the formation of a fair, efficient, and authoritative judicial system.
3.1 Interactive space for case handling type government and hospital
Handling cases in accordance with the law is the top priority of the administrative trial work of the people's court. Only by fairly and timely handling administrative cases that have already been accepted, can the court have the necessary and confidence to expand its administrative trial functions. Compared with civil trials, the disputes faced by administrative trials often contain complex interests, and judicial organs, like other policy decision-making organs, "have to be involved in the vortex of various conflicting interests. The court itself has an inherent motivation to handle cases properly through interaction between the government and the court, in order to overcome the embarrassing situation of "receiving cases but making difficult judgments". Since the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014, from the perspective of the trend of case handling based interaction between the government and the court, in the future, it is necessary to start from respecting judicial laws and adhering to the litigation reform concept of "trial centered". Under the guidance of substantive dispute resolution standards, we need to coordinate the use of mechanisms such as lawful judgment, lawful mediation, coordinated resolution, judicial advice, and court appearance.
In the past five years, there has been a phenomenon of "three joys" and "three worries" in the interactive practice of case handling type government and hospital. The so-called "three joys" refer to the fact that the coordination and resolution rate is no longer a mandatory indicator for judges to handle cases, the coordination and resolution rate tends to decline, and court appearances and judicial advice become normalized. The registration system and diversified adjudication methods established by the Administrative Litigation Law provide institutional support for the people's courts to close cases through legal judgments. In addition, the adjustment of the policy of coordinating and resolving cases around 2008 within the political and legal system has led to an increasingly rational attitude of the people's courts towards case coordination and resolution. The Administrative Litigation Law, revised in 2014, clearly stipulates the system of appearing in court to respond to lawsuits in the general provisions, and adds types of judicial recommendations, making the implementation of these two systems more effective. The so-called "three worries" refer to the blurring boundary between legal mediation and coordination, the existence of institutional paradox in pre litigation mediation, and the deviation of the goal of responding to litigation and judicial advice. Article 60 of the Administrative Litigation Law clearly stipulates that three types of administrative cases can be mediated, and Article 94 places administrative mediation agreements on an equal footing with administrative judgments and rulings. However, courts are still accustomed to promoting reconciliation between the two parties through coordination and allowing the parties to withdraw and close the case, and rarely issue administrative mediation agreements, intentionally or unintentionally blurring the boundary between mediation and coordination. The administrative dispute mediation center model that has emerged in some places in recent years attempts to resolve administrative disputes before litigation through open and organized interaction between the government and the court. Although this move has the good intention of achieving the governance of litigation sources, it has a tense relationship with the legal registration system for filing cases. Although appearing in court to respond to lawsuits and providing judicial suggestions have been promoted in a high-profile manner, the "Fourth Five Year Plan for Reform" of the people's courts regards it as a measure to optimize the external environment of administrative trials, and does not fully reflect the purpose of interactive handling of individual cases.
The decision to comprehensively govern the country according to law has issued a call to promote the reform of the litigation system centered on trial. Subsequently, there have been intensive follow-up measures in the field of criminal litigation, but there has been no response in the field of administrative litigation so far. The reform of the litigation system centered on trial is still an unfinished discussion and reform. Adhering to the principle of putting trial at the center is a return of judicial power to the attributes of judgment and central authority, reflecting respect for judicial laws, and should also be implemented in the reform of the administrative litigation system. Regardless of how the function of the administrative litigation system is positioned, it is a basic consensus that resolving administrative disputes is a direct and fundamental function of administrative litigation. Administrative litigation centers on trial, which aims to highlight the substantive nature of the court proceedings and avoid the marginalization and formalization of the court and its proceedings in resolving administrative disputes. Since 2010, the Supreme People's Court has emphasized that administrative trials should strive to substantially resolve administrative disputes, and make legal, fair, timely, and appropriate decisions on substantive issues in disputes between parties within the legal framework. The goal we pursue should be the rule of law rather than the legal system, and the substantive resolution of disputes rather than procedural closure. In the past five years, "substantive resolution of administrative disputes" has been continuously written into judicial documents and has become a basic principle followed by courts in handling administrative cases. It has played an important role in effectively solving the problems of "procedural idleness" and "ineffective adjudication" in administrative trials, and has won widespread social recognition. In the "55 Reform Outline" of the People's Court, "promoting substantive resolution of administrative disputes", "protecting the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparties in accordance with the law", and "supervising and supporting administrative organs to govern in accordance with the law" have become the basic goals of the reform of the administrative litigation system.
Under the guidance of the concept of trial centered and substantive resolution of administrative disputes, courts should distinguish between restrictive and discretionary actions, infringement of administrative and beneficial administration, illegal and improper actions, pure administrative disputes and civil disputes, legal disputes and policy disputes in administrative cases, and focus on "dispute resolution based on agreement" and "dispute resolution based on decision". Through a combination of legal judgment, legal mediation, and coordinated resolution, supplemented by the use of court appearances and judicial advice mechanisms, the handling effect of "mediation and judgment combined, and case settlement" can be achieved. In the current administrative trial practice, a number of typical cases have emerged that utilize various forms of interaction between the government and the court to promote substantive resolution of administrative disputes. In the ruling of the case of Huang Shaohua v. Huixian Municipal Government on raising the standard of pension, the Supreme People's Court fully explained the policy issues involved in the case that are difficult to review. Through recording the coordination outside the case and the sending of judicial suggestions, it expressed concern about the actual interests of the applicant for retrial. This dialogue based judgment document that integrates reasoning and empathy is an important carrier for the court to substantively resolve administrative disputes. In May 2019, the Shanghai High People's Court was the first to announce the first batch of ten substantive cases for resolving administrative disputes to the public. Among them, 7 cases were resolved through coordination, 2 cases were resolved through issuing administrative mediation agreements, and 1 case was resolved through confirming illegal judgments.
3.2 The space for interaction between the rule of law promoting government and the court
In the process of comprehensively promoting the rule of law, whether leading cadres can consciously use legal thinking and methods to deepen reform, promote development, resolve conflicts, and maintain stability is the key and difficult point of legal construction. Since the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Party Central Committee has attached great importance to the construction of the rule of law, and the enthusiasm of governments at all levels to learn and use the law has generally increased. This has created a favorable environment for the courts to moderately expand their trial functions and provide legal protection for the implementation of Party and state policies. The interaction between the government and the court, which promotes the rule of law, has a broader space. Under the goal orientation of "development is the foundation and key to solving all problems", administrative agencies are more willing to adopt administrative measures that can effectively achieve administrative tasks and maximize efficiency, and rely more on the principle of administrative efficiency. Given the division of roles between judiciary and administration, and taking into account regional and urban-rural differences in the construction of the rule of law, as well as differences in administrative tasks and methods, the forms of interaction between the rule of law promoting government and the court should be more flexible and diverse. The Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Rule of Law Government (2015-2020) jointly issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council in December 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Outline for the Construction of a Rule of Law Government") sets the overall goals and measurement standards for a rule of law government, and serves as a direct basis for the supervision and demonstration of the construction of a rule of law government. It should be regarded as an action guide for promoting the interaction between the government and the court in accordance with the rule of law. In the construction of a rule of law government, the "legitimacy consideration" of constraining public power and protecting private rights, and the "best consideration" structure of improving government efficiency, people's courts can only demonstrate respect for the best judgment of administrative agencies by adhering to the bottom line of administrative legitimacy.
In the past five years, there have been "two joys" and "two worries" in the practice of promoting the interaction between the rule of law and the government. The so-called "two joys" refer to the fact that publishing administrative trial white papers based on the trial situation of administrative cases has become a normalized work of the court, aiming to promote the institutionalization of the interaction between the government and the court to enhance their ability to administer according to law. The so-called "two worries" refer to the risks of excessive restraint and ambiguous roles in the mechanism of promoting capacity enhancement in the release of administrative trial white papers, which presents a sporty and formal appearance. Since 2017, courts at all levels have frequently released administrative trial white papers, fully demonstrating their own administrative trial achievements and actively providing suggestions for local rule of law construction. However, upon careful reading of the administrative trial white papers publicly released by courts at all levels to the society, one is left with an overall impression of 'one book for every thousand'. Apart from various statistical data and superficial improvement measures for law enforcement, there are few precise strategies that provide targeted solutions. In the process of busy interacting to assist the government in enhancing its ability to govern according to law, the court has neglected the functions of other existing formal systems and has shown more of a role as a supporter and facilitator of administrative agencies, even treating government court interaction as a strategic means for the court to seek legitimacy in administrative trials. In the long run, this approach of diluting or even weakening the legal supervision function may not necessarily be able to enhance judicial credibility through optimizing the external environment of administrative trials. On the contrary, the court's decisive judgment based on legality review and consideration of the best judgment in accordance with the law is the best way to enhance the administrative capacity of administrative organs in accordance with the law.
Guided by the concepts of legality bottom line theory and administrative process theory, courts should engage in positive interaction on the basis of clarifying the boundary between administrative and judicial powers, in order to avoid falling into "reckless" and "blind" actions. In terms of various ways of promoting the rule of law in government and court interactions, attention should be paid to establishing targeted and precise guidance for interactive effects, in order to meet the differentiated needs of different regions' levels of rule of law construction. Fujian Province has recently combined the reform of centralized jurisdiction of administrative cases and actively explored the cross regional joint conference system. It has formed three major areas: Fupu Ning (Fuzhou, Putian, Ningde), Xiazhang Quan (Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Quanzhou), and Nansanlong (Nanping, Sanming, Longyan), effectively implementing coordination and linkage within the areas. Although external support is necessary for administrative staff to enhance their ability to govern according to law, it mainly relies on their own efforts, especially through actively participating in legal practice as proposed in the "Outline of a Rule of Law Government". Shanghai has recently launched the "three in one" reform measure for administrative officials to attend court hearings and evaluations, achieving mutual interaction between case handling and rule of law promotion. The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the goal of basically building a rule of law country, a rule of law government, and a rule of law society by 2035, and the "Outline of a Rule of Law Government" outlined the basic structure of a rule of law government. The interaction between the rule of law promoting government and the court should be based on these standards, filling the gaps in the existing rule of law government system, so that the court can use the advantages of hearing administrative cases to moderately expand its trial service functions, play a "blood transfusion" role in the construction of a rule of law government, and form a good division of labor with the interaction between the case handling government and the court (as shown in the table below).
Division of labor between case handling type government and institution interaction and rule of law promotion type government and institution interaction
4.Rule of law construction of government court interaction in administrative litigation
Regarding the relationship between reform and the rule of law, the "Decision on Comprehensive Rule of Law" has put forward important statements such as "major reforms are based on the law" and "legislation actively adapts to the needs of reform and economic and social development". As an institutional innovation rooted in China's administrative trial practice, the interaction between the government and the court has updated the traditional understanding of the relationship between judicial power and administrative power. For the administrative litigation system in modern national governance, which connects public law and private rights, government and society, and judiciary and administration, the interaction between the government and the court has become an important phenomenon in the evolution of the administrative litigation system. The amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law in 2014 partially recorded the achievements of the interaction practice between the government and the court in the previous decade, ending the predicament of the illegal operation of the interaction between the government and the court. The development of administrative trial practice in the new era, especially the "hybrid judiciary" that combines dispute resolution and policy implementation functions, still has room for interaction between the government and the court. The construction of the rule of law for government court interaction can be completed through the application of legal interpretation, process transparency, and relief effectiveness, and a development path for the administrative litigation system that is suitable for China's national conditions can be found.
4.1 The application of legal interpretation in the interaction between the government and the court
The Administrative Litigation Law provides clear basis for three ways of case handling interaction between the government and the court, but its effective implementation still requires corresponding legal interpretation and application techniques. As for the coordination and resolution mechanism, most of the relevant normative documents currently come from higher people's courts in various regions, lacking the authority and unity they should have. Although the Supreme People's Court strongly advocates the concept of substantive resolution of administrative disputes, it has not been written into the Administrative Litigation Law. A more feasible legal response strategy is: firstly, to systematically interpret Articles 60, 61, and 62 of the Administrative Litigation Law, and regard mediation, joint trial of civil disputes, and coordinated resolution and withdrawal of lawsuits as matching mechanisms for substantive resolution of administrative disputes. Courts at all levels should adopt more methods of issuing administrative mediation agreements to substantively resolve administrative disputes, and record the process of coordination and resolution in the judgment documents as much as possible to avoid the recurrence of abnormal withdrawal of lawsuits. Secondly, when conditions are ripe, the Supreme People's Court may formulate special judicial interpretations specifically for substantive resolution of administrative disputes, achieving a "replacement and upgrade" of the judicial interpretations for withdrawal of lawsuits in 2008, and responding to the theoretical questioning of the phenomenon of "neither resolving disputes nor supervising in accordance with the law, and not giving plaintiffs a way out". In terms of the mechanism for appearing in court to respond to lawsuits and judicial suggestions, the normative basis is already relatively sufficient, and the task of legalization is to clarify the mandatory nature of Article 3 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Law that "should appear in court to respond to lawsuits" and enhance the rigidity of the provisions for appearing in court to respond to lawsuits.
The legal basis for promoting the interaction between the rule of law and the government has always been lacking, mainly scattered in some judicial documents and other normative documents, and some working mechanisms are still in the exploratory stage. Due to the lack of formal legal basis, some ways of interaction between the government and the court have been questioned. The Supreme People's Court shall, in a timely manner, formulate specialized judicial documents to regulate the subject and object, content and format, procedures and effectiveness of administrative trial white papers, so as to produce similar effects as the statutory "Analysis Report on the Status of Administrative Reconsideration Work" and "Annual Report on Government Information Disclosure Work". As for the joint meetings and other ways of interaction between the government and the government aimed at improving the ability of administrative agencies to govern in accordance with the law, as they are often initiated by administrative agencies themselves, it is more feasible to adopt a joint document issuance method between the government and the government.
4.2 The process of interaction between the government and the hospital is made public
Judicial fairness is the lifeline of a rule of law country, and judicial transparency is the prerequisite for judicial fairness. The main reason why some interactive practices between government and administrative agencies have been questioned in the past is that most of the interactions were conducted privately by courts and administrative agencies. Especially in the interactive activities between the government and the court around individual case handling, there is a clear tension with the principle of prohibiting unilateral contact in the litigation law. In addition, the coordination, resolution, and withdrawal rate of administrative cases once soared, which makes it more likely to attract criticism from the outside world. The practice of actively announcing the top ten typical cases of substantive resolution of administrative disputes in Shanghai, Anhui, and Jilin in 2019 has had a similar effect as the unified online and public inquiry system for effective court judgments, and is worth promoting nationwide. The court can only demonstrate judicial protection for the equal legal status of the parties in litigation by issuing typical cases, making administrative mediation agreements, or recording the process of coordination and resolution in judicial documents. In the practice of administrative trials, there are increasingly more judicial suggestions issued around the resolution of individual cases, covering various types such as "local public policy adjustment type", "providing compensation and assistance to parties", "correcting administrative procedural defects", etc. The relevant facts and contents of some judicial suggestions are also recorded in the judgment documents. This approach solidifies the function of judicial advice as an interactive and appropriate handling of individual cases between the government and the court, and achieves the effect of being publicly disclosed through the recording of judgment documents. Since September 22, 2011, the People's Court Daily has set up a special column called "Selected Judicial Suggestions" in its "Practical Weekly" section every Thursday, publishing a large number of excellent judicial suggestions from all over the country. These steady and open judicial recommendations are in line with the trend of judicial openness and enhance the credibility of the case handling type of government court interaction.
Among the various forms of interaction between the government and the court that promote the rule of law, the transparency of administrative trial white papers is increasing, reflecting the court's confidence in trial. The administrative trial white paper is a special report produced by the court based on a large number of individual case trials. It is equivalent to a comprehensive examination report on the annual administrative trial work and the level of rule of law government construction in a region. It also needs to establish a sound regulatory basis to change the abnormal state of the court's disclosure based solely on its own preferences. According to Article 24 of the "Regulations on the Construction of a Rule of Law Government and the Implementation of Responsibilities Supervision" issued by the Central Office and the State Council in April 2019, various annual reports on the construction of a rule of law government must be made public to the public through news media such as newspapers and websites before April 1 each year, and subject to supervision by the people. This mandatory regulation can force governments at all levels to take the annual report on the construction of a rule of law government seriously, and it is worth absorbing in the legal construction of the administrative trial white paper. As for the openness of joint meetings and other interactive methods between the government and the court that promote the rule of law, flexible handling can be achieved through channels such as news reports and work reports.
4.3 Effective guarantee of relief through interaction between government and institutions
The interaction between the government and the court demonstrates a unique form of collaborative governance between judicial and administrative powers under the party and government system, and does not mean a self abandonment of the function of judicial power to supervise administrative power and safeguard citizens' rights. The Administrative Litigation Law is neither a simple 'administrative law' nor a simple 'litigation law'. In a broad sense, it is a court procedural law for legal disputes in public law; at the same time, it is also a way to implement the Constitution and administrative law through various specific judgments. "Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law, revised in 2014, deleted the phrase 'maintain' and retained 'supervise', and Article 42 of the 2019 People's Court '55 Reform Outline' placed 'protecting the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparties in accordance with the law' before dispute resolution and supervising support for administration, conveying the 'original intention' of the administrative litigation system to carry out the power supervision and rights protection functions granted by the Constitution. The fundamental purpose of court administrative trial work is to hear cases and resolve disputes, with the mission of supervising and protecting rights. In the period of social transformation where the external judicial environment needs further improvement and the judicial status is relatively weak, the court, through communication, cooperation, and coordination with administrative agencies, has the "self limiting and self-protection effect of the judiciary". However, long-term indulgence in this can also lead to "the neutrality, negativity, and autonomy of the judiciary being illusory". The active function of the interaction between the people's courts and the government should be based on adhering to the bottom line of effective relief of citizens' rights and effective supervision of administrative power.
From the perspective of the evolution of the relationship between law, political order, and social order, China is currently in a period of development where "autonomous law" and "responsive law" coexist. Law needs to exist not only as a special system that can control, suppress, and maintain its own integrity, but also as a convenient tool to respond to various social needs and desires. The development of China's administrative litigation system in the past fifteen years, especially the emergence of the phenomenon of interaction between the government and the court, is a reflection of the true state of the judicial system's operation hovering between political identity and social identity, order maintenance and rights protection. The diverse forms of interaction between the government and the court in administrative litigation carry multiple functions, and the original intention of coordinating and resolving them is good. However, it has been criticized for excessive use, and the root cause lies in advocating that coordinated handling must be based on an independent and authoritative judicial system, with the court ensuring that judgments are made in accordance with the law as the backing. When summarizing the experience gained from years of administrative trial work in China, the "Administrative Trial Opinion" regards "protecting the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparties in accordance with the law" as the primary task of administrative trial, and regards "correctly handling the relationship between supervision and maintenance" as an important principle for fully fulfilling the functions of administrative trial. After thirteen years, these judgments still have a guiding role in administrative litigation activities, including the interaction between the government and the court. The interactive activities between the people's courts and the government demonstrate the adherence to the effectiveness of relief, embodying the concept of "putting the people at the center" in safeguarding the right to litigation, and demonstrating the judicial policy goal of "establishing cases and handling lawsuits".
Conclusion
Currently, China's administrative litigation system is facing challenges from both internal and external sources. From an internal perspective, the reform of the administrative case jurisdiction system is advancing in depth, and a preliminary litigation pattern has been formed where ordinary cases are tried in administrative district courts and special cases are tried in cross administrative district courts. The jurisdictional reform has brought the dividend of reduced administrative intervention, but also increased the difficulty of coordinating and resolving cases. The "inverted pyramid" case trial structure has caused the contradiction of "more cases and fewer people", and the separation of complex and simple litigation and the optimization of the trial team urgently need to be included in the agenda. From an external perspective, the third meeting of the Central Committee for the Comprehensive Rule of Law has passed the "Reform Plan for the Administrative Reconsideration System", emphasizing the institutional advantages of fair, efficient, and convenient administrative reconsideration through the revision of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, making administrative reconsideration the main channel for resolving administrative disputes. The role of the "main channel" for administrative reconsideration has been mentioned again, indicating the beginning of a major reform of the administrative reconsideration system. For the administrative litigation system that competes and cooperates with the administrative reconsideration system, how to seek its own development space outside the main channel of administrative dispute resolution is a practical issue that it must face.
This article elaborates on the functional explanation of the interaction practice between the government and the court in administrative litigation, revealing the special mechanism of the operation of judicial power with Chinese characteristics during the period of social transformation. In the face of the institutional mission of safeguarding rights and supervising power, as well as the practical requirements of resolving disputes and serving the overall situation, the people's courts have continuously innovated their work methods with the help of institutional resources, and interpreted the principle of "having a place is where there is a place, and having a place is where there is more potential" with actions rich in survival wisdom. The complex relationship between judicial power and administrative power has been revealed through the tortuous interaction between the government and the court in practice, which contains a series of dilemma choices that need to be resolved through continuous deepening of legal practice: "While breaking the superstition of judicial dispute resolution ability, establish the authority of judicial dispute resolution; while abandoning judicial centrism, strengthen the previously non-existent judicial centrism; and develop informal control when formal legal control has not yet been implemented." The court's continuous efforts to seek development space for administrative trials through government court interaction have improved the institutional capacity of administrative litigation and the actual status of the court. In the current era of accelerating the construction of a rule of law government and continuously improving the diversified administrative dispute resolution system, administrative trials, as an organic part of the people's judicial cause, will also usher in new development opportunities, helping judicial reform to achieve the transformation from "making justice more like justice" to "making justice more capable of justice".