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.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Delegated Legislation

Administrative legislation of the western countries

The Democratic Guarantee of and Supervision & Control over Administrative Legislation of China

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

The Weakness of Legislative Control on Administrative Discretion:Testified by an Example

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

Legislative Reform Trends of the Parliaments of Western Countries——Also on Legislative Role of the Government

Legislative Decentralization in China in the Reform Era – Progress and Limitations

Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion

The Capability of Western Country's Parliaments to Make Good Law——Comparing Concurrently with the Capability of the Government to Make Good Law

Evaluation Criteria of the Legislative Interaction Between Government and Parliament

The Division of the Legislative Power between the Central and Local Legislation

Legislative scrutiny in the United States: dynamic, whole-stream revision

The Theory of Legislation Discretion in Germanconstitutional Review and Its Enlightenment

A "Revolution" Coming Late: The British Dispute about Its Parliamentary Sovereignty

Public Management of Constitutionalism——Preliminary Study of Developing Direction of Public Management

On Legal Supervision and Control of Administrative Legislation in China

On Defects and Improvement of Legislative Technique of Our Country's Real Right Law

Law,Sovereignty and Democracy——On Political Dimension of Dicey's Constitutional Doctrines

On the Operation System of NPC Legislation

Some Issues and Countermeasures of Democratic Self-governing Construction under System of Workers' Congress