Research On The Perfection Path Of The Joint Punishment Mechanism For Breach Of Faith From The Perspective Of Administrative Law

The State Council has divided China’s dishonest joint punishment system into four types of punishment: administrative punishment,market punishment,industry punishment,and social punishment.This article takes this system as the research object and studies the dishonest joint punishment system from the perspective of administrative law.This system has made certain achievements in supplementing traditional administrative supervision methods,government transformation and upgrading,and maintaining legal integrity,which has profound significance for the current construction of credit rule of law in China.However,there are also some problems: firstly,the support of upper law is insufficient,and the joint punishment mechanism for dishonesty has a significant policy orientation,with the characteristics of policy first and legal lag.Secondly,the administrative blacklist system is still incomplete,with unclear inclusion and removal standards and unclear disclosure deadlines.Thirdly,there is a lack of standardization in joint punishment,which is manifested in the trend of widespread moralization in the recognition of dishonest behavior,the mismatch between the strength of disciplinary measures and the degree of dishonesty,and the violation of the principle of prohibiting improper connection.Fourthly,the protection of the rights and interests of dishonest subjects is insufficient,and procedural rights protection,methods for disclosing dishonest information,and credit repair mechanisms need to be further improved.In order to provide solutions to the above dilemmas,this article takes the joint punishment of dishonesty as the research object,adopts research methods such as literature research,normative analysis,and empirical analysis,and attempts to propose the following suggestions for improving the joint punishment of dishonesty from the perspective of administrative law: First,fill in the gaps in the upper law,and accelerate the formulation of a unified social credit legislation,On the basis of adhering to the principles of law priority and law reservation,support local legislation to take the lead,and let local legislative practices provide experience for central legislation.Second,further improve the administrative blacklist system from the aspects of clarity of inclusion and removal criteria,and standardization of the blacklist publication deadline.Third,standardize the application of joint punishment,including correcting the tendency of widespread moralization in the identification of dishonest acts,balancing the intensity of punishment and the degree of dishonesty,and adhering to the principle of prohibiting improper connection.By improving the above aspects,we can ensure that joint punishment for dishonesty exerts its due maximum benefits on the track of the rule of law.Fourth,strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of dishonest subjects,specifically including safeguarding the procedural rights of dishonest subjects,improving the methods of publishing dishonest information,and improving the credit repair mechanism.The system of joint punishment for dishonesty,as an emerging administrative supervision method,plays an indispensable role in the government’s macroeconomic regulation and maintenance of market transaction order.However,there are still shortcomings in certain aspects of this system,which hinders its process of improving the rule of law.Therefore,it must be further improved in order to operate in a standardized manner on the track of the rule of law.