On The Reconciliation Of Administrative Compulsion

For a long time, the academic world of our country has discussed so many questions about the reconciliation of Administrative Compulsion (hereinafter referred to as "The Reconciliation"), such as whether the administrative compulsory execution can be conciliated, what is the nature and the status of the Reconciliation and so on. These researches have laid good foundations for the Reconciliation established in the Administrative Compulsion Law, which was passed on June30,2011and came into effect upon January1,2012. Based on the scholars’researches on the Reconciliation and the understanding of the gathered data, the Reconciliation was analyzed in the paper.This paper consists five parts. The first part is the explanation of the administrative compulsion, reconciliation, the Reconciliation and the differences between the Reconciliation and the administrative reconciliation. The next part is from the angles of the rightness, the necessity and the feasibility to give reasonable analyses of the Reconciliation. The third part is about the shortcomings of the Reconciliation on the clause stipulation and in the practical manipulation. And the forth part is from the six aspects of the form, the scope of application, the process, the effectiveness, the settlement of disputes and legal liability of the Reconciliation to offer consummate proposals. For the form, it suggests that the execution of protocol in the Reconciliation should be clearly stipulated in written form. For the scope of application, it should be consummately expressed as the Reconciliation can be applied in the grading implementation of administrative compulsion and the implementation penalty. For the process, it suggests that it should be built or consummated a serial process of informing, consulting, closing a bargain and putting a file. For the effectiveness, although the execution of protocol is the core of the Reconciliation, the administrative organization for law enforcement cannot recover the compulsory implementation according to it. For the settlement of disputes, the system of the summiting and conserving, the indemnifying for damage can be regard as the means of the Reconciliation; besides, it also can be brought into Administrative Reconsideration and Law of Executive Accusation. For the legal liability, it suggests that it should add the breaching of the execution of protocol in article61of Administrative Compulsion Law, meanwhile, add the compensation for unilateral alteration or cancellation of the execution of protocol by the administrative organization as a mean of legal liability. The last part is mainly about the basis of making points in this paper and the wish of the author that the paper should gain forgiveness and give directions.