Research On Judicial Governance Of Government Administrative Inaction

In recent years,with the increase of administrative inaction cases,administrative inaction has become the focus of administrative law.In many cases of administrative inaction,the administrative inaction in the field of environmental governance is typical and diverse.The 19 th National Congress proposed to "accelerate the reform of the ecological civilization system and build a beautiful China".The new "Administrative Procedure Law" on the prosecution The provisions of administrative public interest litigation have made good progress in the governance of government administrative inaction in the field of environmental governance.Despite this,the status quo of China's ecological environment is still worrying,and the study of administrative inaction is late,there is a research gap both in theory and in practice.The concept of administrative inaction has not yet formed a unified view.In judicial practice,there is no uniform standard of judgment.This paper cuts through the field of environmental governance,uses cross-research,comparative research and case analysis methods to study the judicial governance of administrative inaction,which is conducive to perfecting relevant administrative laws and regulations,thus providing correct guidance for administrative actions,and also conducive to government legitimacy.Improvement and sustainable development of China's economy and society.The administrative inaction of our government has profound historical,political and economic reasons.The government's choice of value between developing the economy and protecting the environment is biased.The bureaucratic thoughts and administrative reforms in China for thousands of years have not led to complete the administrative powers and responsibilities are unclear,which are the reasons for the emergence of administrative inaction.How to use judicial means to control administrative inaction and pursue the legal responsibility of dereliction of duty executives is a difficult point in research.Through the case analysis of administrative inaction in the field of environmental governance,we can find that the judicial governance of administrative inaction in China has the following problems: First,the scope of administrative non-action litigation is small;second,administrative inaction is limited as a plaintiff of public interest litigation;third is administrative The subject is unclear about himselfas an obligation;fourthly,the distribution of the burden of proof of administrative non-action litigation is unreasonable;fifth,it is difficult for the administrative counterpart to obtain state compensation.There are three main reasons for these problems.First,the criteria for defining administrative inaction are not clear.Second,the separation of administrative and judicial powers in China is not clear enough.The interference of administrative power on judicial power leads to the inability of the judiciary to be independent.There is no legal support for liability for non-action.This paper summarizes the characteristics and advantages of the administration of the United Kingdom,the United States,France and Germany in the field of environmental governance as a judicial governance,and provides a reference for the judicial governance of administrative inaction in China.In view of the administrative inaction in China,this paper proposes five perfect measures: first,improve the legislation on the administrative subject responsibility,and clarify the judgment criteria of administrative inaction;secondly,expand the scope of administrative non-action litigation and administrative public welfare The scope of the plaintiff's qualifications for litigation;third,improve the system of distribution of burden of proof,fair distribution of disputes between the two parties;fourth,guarantee the independent exercise of judicial power,prevent the interference of administrative power on judicial power;fifth,improve the country of administrative inaction The compensation system strictly enforces the state's liability for administrative inaction.