Abstract:Control over the acts of discretion is one of the long-standing challenges faced by the administrative law community. Control over the acts of discretion begins with the distinction between binding acts and acts of discretion. However, the relevant precedents are aggravating the difficulty of control over the acts of discretion by recognizing the concept of restricted discretion as a third area that is neither binding acts nor acts of discretion. According to the theory of precedents, acts of restricted discretion are binding acts in principle, but in exceptional cases, they refer to acts that can refuse approval or acceptance of reports when there is a need for important public interests. However, the ‘need for important public interests’ referred to in restricted discretion corresponds to a representative amorphous concept. However, precedents understand the interpretation and application of amorphous concepts as a matter of discretion. Then, it is logical to understand restricted discretion as acts of discretion in principle. Nevertheless, the precedents commit a contradiction in viewing restricted discretion as binding acts. In addition, the concept of restricted discretion causes numerous contradictions and incongruities with existing administrative law theories, such as violation of the principle of statutory reservation, avoidance of the obligation to set disposition standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, deformation of the judgment under circumstances, and contradictions with the withdrawal system and reporting system. In light of the above, the concept of restricted discretion should be abolished in accordance with principle of the rule of law. Restricted discretion should be considered to be established only when individual laws expressly stipulate that refusal disposition can be made due to the need for important public interests. In addition, it is reasonable to say that at the moment such a regulation is made in an individual law, the relevant acts already fall under acts of discretion in terms of the intent and purpose of the regulation.

On Extention and Limitation for Right of Discretion in Public Order and Security Punishments

Judicial Application of Restrictive Commutation of Death Penalty with Suspension: Comment on No. 12 Guiding Case of the Supreme People's Court

Legal Liability of Violation of Obligation on Administrative Law: Between Administrative Punishment and Penalty——Analysis on Article 7 (2) of Administrative Punishment Law

The Basic Modification Direction of The Administrative Procedure Law——Discussing Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law

Solution of Disputes and Supervision of Powers: Dispute Solution in Laws Applying to Actions Against Administrative Agencies' Decisions

On the Judgement of Public Interests of Administrative Requisition

Studies on Public Security Penalties: a Comparison Between Germany, Taiwan and Mainland China

Regulating judicial discretion on administrative penalty under clean government building

On Investigative Measures of Public Security Organs when Involved in a Public Security Case

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

On Criminal Penalty Restriction in Internet Public Opinion Supervising

On Legal Guarantee Against the Supervisory Right of Network Public Opinions

Legal Control on Administrative Investigation

Some Issues on the "Objective Punishment Condition"

On Discretionary Mechanism of Penalty for Minor Offenders

The Warrantor and Recognizance System for Administrative Penalty for Public Security

Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion

On Amendment of China’s Administrative Reconsideration Law

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

A Comparative Study of the Rule of Reasonableness and the Principle of Proportionality

On Self-regulation of Administrative Discretion