Abstract:The Administrative Litigation Law of China 1989 paints a rosy picture in which the individual and the government face each other in court, both submitting to the judgment of the law. However, in reality, many administrative cases do not conclude with judicial rulings but largely with withdrawals by plaintiffs (varying between 30-57%). In recent years, coordination and settlement in administrative litigations are even advocated in the official directives.This paper employs national statistical data, articles and reports written by judges to demonstrate that in most situations, withdrawals in administrative cases have not only denied individual plaintiffs the opportunity to protect their legal rights through litigation, but also rendered illusory any potential contribution that litigations might have towards the rule of law. The large number of withdrawals indicates the degree of difficulty that the institution of administrative litigation faces. Efforts made by the Supreme People's Court to enhance the number of administrative cases or reduce the rate of withdrawal have failed to reverse the general pattern. The preference for coordination and settlement that courts at all levels have expressed in administrative litigation may be partly motivated by the prevailing judicial philosophy, but it is believed to be primarily a collective compromise that courts have made in face of challenging conditions.The paper indicates that the institution of administrative litigation, embedded in the contemporary political and social structure of China, cannot be a means for achieving constitutional governance in China, and its impact on social change is severely limited. To eliminate the obstacles to administrative litigation, the immediate priority should be the promotion of judicial independence and authority. In the long term, the reform depends on the growth of civil society and the perfection of democratic politics.

Suing the Government under Independent Jurisdiction: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China

Suing the Government under Weak Rule of Law: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China

Judicial Independence, Local Protectionism, and Economic Integration: Evidence from China

Judicial institutional design and corporate litigation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China

The Selection of Litigation against Government Agencies: Evidence from China

From Local to Upper Capture: The Chinese Experiment of Administrative Courts

Judicial Independence and Corporate Employment: Evidence from China

Environmental judicial independence and corporate investment efficiency: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China

Conditional Justice: Evaluating the Judicial Centralization Reform in China

Does legal justice promote stakeholder justice? Evidence from a judicial reform in China

Anti-corruption campaign, political connections, and court bias: Evidence from Chinese corporate lawsuits

Litigations Without a Ruling: the Predicament of Administrative Law in China

Reforming private securities litigation in China: does private enforcement by minority shareholders matter to corporate fraud?

Monitoring Courts: A Top-down or Grassroots Approach?

Environmental judicial reform and corporate investment behavior - Based on a quasi-natural experiment of environmental courts

Bankruptcy judicial system reform and corporate financial litigation risk: A quasi-natural experiment in China

International Civil Litigation in China: A Practical Analysis of the Chinese Judicial System

Legal Liability, Government Intervention, and Auditor Behavior: Evidence from Structural Reform of Audit Firms in China

Does the Integration Between Litigation and Supervision Discipline Financial Misstatement?

Governmental Inspection and Local Legislation on Environmental Protection: Evidence from China

Do environmental courts break collusion in environmental governance? Evidence from corporate green innovation in China