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.

Separation of Powers, 'traditional' Administration, and Responsible Regulation

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

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

Replacing Agency Adjudication with Independent Administrative Courts.

Restatement on the Legislative Purpose of Administrative Reconsideration

Judicial Review on Abuse of Power by Administrative Authority

Judicial Independence and Separation of Powers: A Case Study in Modern Court Management

On Judicial Power in Constitutional Perspective——Beginning with the Classic Judgment of Montesquieu

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review: A ‘Common Core’ Research

The "frontier" of Administration and Functions of Administrative Law

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

Power Separation Principle and Deconstruction of Constitutional System of Britain

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

On the Abiding Force of Administrative Action on Civil Adjudication

Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion

Major Questions Doctrine Jujitsu: Using The Doctrine To Rein In District Court Judges

On Hong kong's Judicial Power in a Dual Track Politics

The Standards and Methods of Judicial Review:From the Perspective of American Administrative Law

Restrictions and Separation of Power: Police Power in Criminal Justice

On the Application of Administrative Doctrine by Judge

The Judicial Application of "general Principles of Law" from the Perspective of European Administrative Law