On Precise Ascertainment of Administrative Leaderships' Administrative Responsibility
胡建淼,郑春燕
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2004.06.001
2004-01-01
Abstract:Leadership responsibility is a general term for all forms of responsibilities a leader should take in his execution of leadership duties. It can be categorized into two forms: non-legal responsibility (that is, political responsibility), which is a manifestation of being responsible for one's political activity against public will, and legal responsibility, which can be classified into administrative responsibility, civil responsibility, and criminal responsibility, in accordance with the nature of illegal activities. Whether an administrative leader should take administrative responsibility depends on whether his activities run counter to administrative leadership duties. These duties, in real situations, largely originate from self-prescribed administrative rules and regulations and administrative responsibility pledges by various departments, in addition to norms of the constitution, laws, statutes, and provisions. Although manifested in a variety of forms, they generally rely on appropriate balance of interests, equitable distribution of resources, proper concern for procedures, and regular operation of organizations, with the implementation of administrative discretion as its nature. Therefore, leaders' administrative responsibility must be measured by the standard of activities that go against administrative leadership duties, and by drawing a correct line between appropriate discretion activities and illegal activities. Accordingly, illegal administrative leadership activities can be further categorized into two forms: abuse of and negligence of exercising administrative leadership. The former can be further specified in five aspects: the purpose of carrying out administrative leadership activities runs counter to the legislative intention of empowering administrative leadership duties; the implementation of administrative leadership activities fails to take relevant interests into full consideration; the implementation is a move of shifting administrative leadership duties; the executed administrative leadership activities go against the principle of proportionality in administrative law; and the implementation of administrative leadership activities violates the principle of equal treatment. The latter includes the empowering of discretion to a third party, the belief of non-discretion, the inappropriate restraint of policies, and the inappropriate restraint of orders from above, etc.