On the record review of regulatory documents

Promulgated in 2006 <<People's Congress at all levels of supervision and Law "" (hereinafter referred to as <<Supervision Law "> Chapter V provides for the review of regulatory documents for the record, this is the record of China's major Development review system. However, with the implementation of the Act, in reality, there have been some difficulties: for example, the scope of regulatory documents, regulatory documents, and record the scope of the review of the record review of regulatory documents to the relevant regulatory documents and other system coordination review so, this Article will focus on these issues to make a preliminary study.

First, the scope of normative documents
In China, regulatory documents are those developed by the state organs are not legislation, but can be repeated universally binding application files. [1] in accordance with the Development agencies to points, can be divided into normative legislative documents, normative documents the executive and the judiciary of the normative documents. [2] from the provisions of the legislation point of view, normative documents of the legislature at all levels, mainly refers to the NPC, the Standing Committee established by resolution, decision, administrative authorities mainly refers to the normative documents developed by all levels of government decisions and orders, all levels of government depArtments to develop the orders and instructions of the judiciary is the normative documents and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Supreme People's Court issued judicial interpretation.

As the number of normative documents numerous types of heterogeneous, name confusion, so need to be finishing.

(A legislature normative documents
Constitution on the legislative provisions of the normative documents are: (1 Article 62 of the Constitution, the NPC exercises the following powers: ... ... (xi alter or annul inappropriate National People's Congress Standing Committee's decision. ( 2, Article 67 of the Constitution, the Standing Committee of National People's Congress exercises the following powers: ... ... (h withdrawal of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities with the organs of state power in the Constitution, Laws and administrative regulations and local Laws and regulations in conflict resolution. (3 Constitution, Article 99 paragraph 1,2: local people's congresses at various levels in the administrative area, ... ... adopt and issue resolutions. a place above the county level people's congresses at all levels ... ... the right to alter or annul inappropriate decisions of the Standing Committee. (4 Article 104 of the Constitution, above the county level people's congresses at all levels ... ... revoke a Standing Committee of the NPC's inappropriate resolution. from the constitutional provisions that develop at all levels is mainly determined by the Standing Committee, the resolution is mainly to develop local people's congresses at all levels. But the reality situation, the NPC can not only develop a resolution decision could also be developed, the National People's Congress resolution could also be developed.

So, decisions and resolutions of the differences? According to scholars, who have adopted the approval of the resolution in the form of documents. If approved by the national Economic plan, budget and budget performance reports, the Law changes, approved by the relevant laws, such as approval of <<State Council on the supplementary education through labor provisions of the special Economic zones in Guangdong Province Regulations >>,<<>> and so on. In addition, the planning on the implementation of the law on direct election of county-level summary report, also adopted in the form of resolutions. Therefore, with the approval of a resolution, declaring, conclusions, confirmed that statement in the form of legal documents. The resolution provisions generally do not have the physical and normative acts, but to have the attitude of the file or event or announcement. the decision is different implementation issues such as the decision of the Criminal Procedure Law, dealing with labor camp inmates to re-decide crime, the decision on the issue approved the death penalty, the decision of the Criminal case handling period, the decision to severely punish Economic crimes and punish Criminals who seriously endanger the social order of the decision to approve the port to the outside world, the establishment of Hainan Province, Hainan Special Economic Zone and the establishment of the issue, etc., are used in the form of the decision. shows that decision is made on the real issues, and some also have a clear code of conduct of legal document forms. [ 3]
(B normative documents executive
Normative documents of the executive authorities in administrative law is a kind of abstract administrative acts, administrative law scholars often called other normative documents, as the legislative and administrative documents of the organs (executive and the legislature separately.

For constitutional provisions of other normative documents are: (1 Article 89 of the Constitution, the State Council shall exercise the following powers: (a issue decisions and orders ... ... ... ... (xiv change or revocation of the local organs of state administration at all levels do not appropriate decisions and orders ... .... (2 Constitution, Article 90, paragraph 2, the various ministries ... ... issued orders, instructions. (3 Constitution, Article 107, paragraph 1, local people's governments above the county level ... ... publishing decisions and orders. (4 Article 108 of the Constitution, local people's governments above the county level ... ... the right to change or withdraw their respective departments and of the lower-level people's government of inappropriate decisions. can be seen, the constitutional Development of other normative The authority file is mainly the work of departments at all levels of government and its people. Meanwhile, other normative documents are mainly in the form of decisions, orders, directives, and other government issued form of normative documents issued with government departments and other regulatory documents form is also different. The former is determined, the command, which is the order, direction.

So, what is the decision, order, direct it? According to the 2000 revised <"State administrative organs documents approach>> the provisions of Article 9, the decision for action on important issues or make important arrangements, incentives and relevant units personnel, change or revoke the decision of the lower organs of inappropriate matters. commands for publication in accordance with relevant laws and administrative regulations and rules, announced a major purposes of the mandatory administrative measures, reward the units and personnel. indicates the current document in the form no longer exists , according to 1993 revised <"State administrative agency documents approach>> the requirement, direction for the work on the layout of the lower bodies, the guiding principles set out work activities. But other normative documents is limited to decisions, orders and instructions. This Although the three forms of the Constitution and laws Shangming set, but reality, the other normative documents in the form of amendments to more .2000 <"State administrative organs documents approach>> Article 9 lists a total of 13 document form, in addition to command (order, decision, there are 11 species are: notice, circular, notice, notification, motions, reports, referrals, approval, opinions, letters, meeting minutes. Moreover, because of China <"State administrative agency documents approach>> After several amendments, so that some form of official documents have now disappeared, such as instructions, but do not rule out these" once "the document types still continue its effectiveness, so these types of documents once still study the value should also be included in the ranks of other regulatory documents. (c judiciary normative documents
Supreme Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued a non-normative documents for the major cases of judicial interpretation. The judicial power of interpretation is the NPC Standing Committee in 1981, the <"On the strengthening of the legal interpretation of the resolution>> in the grant. The <<Resolution>> Article 2 provides that where a court trial in the specific application of laws and decrees in question, by the Supreme People's Court interpretation. where a specific application of the work's Procuratorate laws, decrees of the problem, by the Supreme People's Procuratorate Supreme Court to interpret .1997 released <"On the judicial interpretation of certain provisions of>>, in the form of judicial interpretation of the provisions of the" interpretation of the provisions approved "three. Among them, the explanation is that the application of a law or a certain type of case, a class of problems by the application of the provisions of the law. For example May 16, 2001 Supreme Court <"On hearing the illegal manufacture, sale, transportation of firearms, ammunition, explosives and other Criminal Cases of Laws the interpretation of>>. provisions refers to the normative work of the trial, comments, for example, December 19, 2000 Supreme Court <"On Some Issues for the provisions of Criminal property,>>, approval is for the High Court, Court of Military trial issues in the application of the law to consult the specific responses made, for example, July 27, 2000 Supreme Court <"On �̷��ڶ��� seventy-two how to understand the requirements of" The unit, funds for personal use or for lending to others " Official Reply of the>>. In these three judicial interpretation, in addition to approval is the case for trial, the interpretation and regulations are generally applicable, the provisions of the difference lies in the interpretation and to explain the law around the problem of understanding and application of law and the requirement is for the trial, the requirement is more similar to the United States, Japan and other countries internal rules of the court, such as the Japanese Constitution Article 77, the Supreme Court the right to legal proceedings, lawyers, court rules and judicial affairs within the processing matter of the rules. [4]
In this regard, I believe that (1 approval closer to the NPC Standing Committee in 1981, <"On the judicial interpretation of certain provisions of>> the grant of judicial power to interpret the intent. Because of the nature of approved cases and limit the scope of application of law to be more better coordination between the legislative and judicial interpretation of the conflict, and better enable the courts adhere to the "law Development" and "law applies," the boundaries. (2 proved to explain the universality and transcendence case of legal system understanding, it is likely to cause a violation of the legislative Supreme People's Court should be as little as possible, or even abandon this approach. Even in the current can not explain the complete abolition of such a universal situation, nor should be recognized that interpretation of legislation properties. can be used to explain the norms that confine the lower court, that is, its effectiveness will be limited to within the court system means that such an interpretation is only a property does not have a normative legislative documents. (3 for the requirements at this time As makers of the Supreme People's Court has a real sense as the executive branch, that is a manifestation of judicial exercise of executive power, so the effect of the provision only within the court system, similar to the administrative rules. In summary, The author believes that the current judicial interpretation of cases in addition to approval, other provisions of the interpretation and are all non-legislative nature of the normative documents.

Second, the regulatory scope of the review document for the record
<<Supervision Law "> Although the title of Chapter V," review of regulatory documents for the record ", but not all of the filing of regulatory documents are included in the scope of the review, first of all, do not include resolution of the NPC and its Standing Committee decision, and secondly, not including all levels of government departments to develop the orders, instructions. So why <<Supervision Law "> do not put all the normative documents are included in the record review? This resulted in the filing of regulatory documents scope of the review problems. If this was too narrow, it may be difficult to play a role in the record review system, and if this too broad, because of the large number of normative documents, are referred to the filing office to review, is neither practical nor possible. So , in the end should be included in regulatory documents which record the scope of the review? I believe that the filing and examination system in this regard depends on the function of the other, and normative nature of the document itself.

(A function of the record review system
Record review system mainly three types of oversight functions: (1 legislative power of the executive power, judicial power of supervision, which is the people's congress system in China's political organization in the form of the decision. As a result, the government enacted similar legislation, norms documents to be sent to peer review of the Standing Committee for the record, Supreme Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the judicial interpretation of the review should be sent to the National People's Congress for the record, (2 central and local monitoring, which is a unitary state structure of forms determined. Thus, under a resolution of the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee decided to send a record review, (3 between the upper and lower levels within the administrative system of supervision, which is by our administrative leadership structure determined . As a result, lower levels of government to give higher levels of government regulations for record review, the State Department to send the State Department's regulations for record review.

From the start the record function of censorship, to can explain <<Supervision Law "> under review regulatory documents for the record scope. First, if the resolution of the NPC and its Standing Committee decided to review the record, this is the highest legislative oversight, not the function of the record review system. Moreover, even if the NPC and its Standing Committee, resolutions, decisions and the scope of the review into the record, there will be a lack of review of agency problems. [5] Second, "<Supervision Law >> does not provide for government departments to develop a review of regulatory documents for the record, because in accordance with the provisions of existing laws, the Standing Committee review of government departments have no right of legislation and regulatory documents. and <<Authority Act "> The goal is to make a record review of the Standing Committee at all levels of authority, so <<Supervision Law "> does not require the work of government departments Standing orders, directives on record review is understandable. Of course, I believe that this has does not mean that government departments do not need filing regulatory documents reviewed, because the third review of the record function - between the upper and lower levels within the administrative system of supervision and with reference to <<Legislation Law "> the provisions of view, the Government work department of the normative documents should be sent to the level of government for the record review.

(B nature of normative documents
Normative documents and the legislature in the end what is essentially the difference? Or, generally binding normative documents and the law effective difference? To resolve this problem, the German law on the legal idea of duality we can learn from [6]. The so-called legal idea of duality is the meaning of the law into the form of laws and substantive law, the former refers to all representatives of the people must have agreed to conduct the national mean, even if such behavior does not mean force with legal norms, such as gifts, budget , loans, all belong to the legal form of meaning, which only has a normative force of the law is the law. Laband dualism theory of law rooted in their understanding of essential concepts and methods. as they described the so-called law is regulating human live together in freedom of the scope and limits of individual behavior. Act is to designate individual rights and obligations between subjects of the boundaries. Therefore, the method order is meant to solve most of the main conflict between the rights and obligations arising from, if an act specification as a person's own specifications, then such norms can not be the law. Laband will extend this idea to the country, the country as a person, natural person has closed, the State is no different. Thus, only the State itself was outside the the law at all, by law only in the meaning between the different subject areas, including individual and between individuals, between individuals and countries. within the State itself, life is nothing to do with the law. [7]
It can be seen, Laband is a range of internal and external basis of the scope to distinguish between France, Africa and France. Another theory is distinguished by the Master of Public Law Ansch��tz's. Ansch��tz support Laband boundaries in the early theory, but later in 1901 published proposed method should be defined under the terms of liberty and property. He believes that law is an intervention in people's freedom and property norms, that lesson the burden to the people's rights and norms. a real essence of law - that every Law of nature - is in general free to set standards and boundaries and property, each method involves personal freedom and property. [8]
Views from the German point of view of binary law, law and illegal form of whether the difference is not there, and whether the organs of legislative power through the legislative process, but rather should be substantial: (1 is the binding authority of lower levels or the people (internal and external theory? (2 is related to people's rights and obligations? for people with external constraints and the effectiveness of people's rights and obligations related to regulatory documents, should belong to substantive law, should be the object of the record review, which is to to better protect the rights of the people's needs. As for the only effect of lower levels and does not involve the internal organs of the people have rights and obligations of the normative documents, belonging to organizations based on autonomous Development authority to exercise the right of self-management of the product of a one hand, its people did not affect the rights and obligations, on the other hand if the authorities involved in the review would result in self-harm, there is no need to enter the record scope of the review. this standard start, you can enter the scope of the review of the regulatory filing documents include:
1, the legislature's regulatory documents
If, as scholars have said, generally do not have a physical resolution and the provisions of normative acts, but to have the attitude of the file or event or announcement. Decision is made on the real issues, some of the behavior with a clear form of normative legal documents. So, the resolution is not necessary to enter the record scope of the review and the decision is necessary. Of course, the record from the foregoing review of the functions of view, the decision of the NPC and its Standing Committee can not review the record.

2, the executive of the regulatory documents
Amended in 2000 to <"State administrative organs documents approach>> listed in the document type, for example, in addition to orders, notices, announcements are made public, other documents are directed at national authorities, inter motion for authority, the report, referrals, letters, approval, notice, notification, decisions, meeting minutes, comments are directed at the executive or the civil service. One report, consult a higher administrative authority for, letter is for the same level executive , the approval, notice, notification, decision, meeting minutes, comments are directed at the lower administrative organs. Therefore, orders, notices, announcements of these three documents into the record should be the scope of the review. But the question now is not the executive strictly in accordance with <"State administrative organs documents approach>> to develop the requirements specification documents, the name of some places, other than using the name of the provisions, such as notices, bulletins, comments, etc., or not in accordance with the provisions of the contents of the written documents such as meeting minutes relating to civil rights and obligations in writing the content. Thus, if all authorities to identify the record review, and disguised to mean that all regulatory documents are included in the scope of review of the record, this review of the record is "an unbearable weight." [9] In this regard, I believe that through the regulatory documents should clean up itself to contain its spread, to establish a "regulatory documents automatically lapse" system, for those not in accordance with the provisions of the name requirements to develop the normative content of the file, void ab initio, that is not the review is invalid.

3, the judiciary's regulatory documents
Three Supreme Court judicial interpretation, the interpretation of the record with an external review of the effectiveness of the object should be to require only an internal effect, the record should not be the object of the review, approval effective only with the case, does not belong to the scope of normative documents, Because of its impact was small, need not be the object of the record review. for judicial interpretation of Supreme People's Procuratorate of the record review can refer to the practice of judicial interpretation of Supreme People's Court carried out. In addition, local people's courts and judicial interpretation of the local People's Procuratorate, China's current legislation does not recognize the universally binding, there is no need to enter the record scope of the review. if they go into, but acknowledged its effectiveness in disguise, should be through the judicial system of its internal supervision and relief to complete.

In summary, I believe that the filing of regulatory documents the scope of the review should be as shown in Table 1:
The object of the record review
Name
Development agencies

Normative documents of the legislature
Decision
Below the provincial level (including the provincial People's Congress

Normative documents of the executive authorities
Orders, notices, announcements
Governments at all levels and their departments

Normative documents of the judiciary
Explained
Supreme People's Procuratorate

Third, review of regulatory documents for the record of coordination with other review system
China's current review of normative documents, in addition to <<Supervision Law "> filed under censorship, there are several other review system, then this would have a record to examine how the review system and other coordination problems.

(One other review system
1, change or revocation of system
Requirements on the system is quite complex, scattered among the various legal documents, I finished, as shown in Table 2:
Review of the target
Review content
Review mode
Review of the main
Legal basis

NPC Standing Committee
Decision
Inappropriate
Change or revocation of
NPC
<<Constitution>> Section 62

State
Decisions and orders
The Constitution, contrary to law
Revocation
NPC Standing Committee
<<Constitution>> Section 67

Department of the State Council in
Orders, instructions
Inappropriate
Change or revocation of
State
<<Constitution>> Section 89

Local governments
Decisions and orders
Inappropriate
Change or revocation of
The State Council, the higher people's government
<<Constitution>> Section 89, 108, "<local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law"> 59

Inappropriate
Revocation
The level NPC and its Standing Committee
<<Constitution>> Section 104, "<local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law"> section of Article 8,9

The work of the department of local government
Decision
Inappropriate
Change or revocation of
The people's government
<<Constitution>> Section 108

Orders, instructions
<<Local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law "> 59

Local People
Provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the NPC's resolution
With the Constitution, laws, administrative rules and regulations inconsistent
Revocation
NPC Standing Committee
<<Constitution>> Section 67

Resolution
Inappropriate
Revocation
Standing on the level
<<Constitution>> Section 104, "<local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law"> section 44

Local People's Congress
Provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Standing Committee's Resolution
With the Constitution, laws, administrative rules and regulations inconsistent
Revocation
NPC Standing Committee
<<Constitution>> Section 67

Resolution
Inappropriate
Change or revocation of
The level NPC
<<Constitution>> Section 99, "<local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law"> 8

Inappropriate
Revocation
Standing on the level
<<Local people's congresses and local people's government at all levels, Law "> section 44

2, the administrative review of other regulatory documents in the fringe of the review system
China <<Administrative Review>> Article 7,26,27 stipulates the review of other regulatory authorities with style review of documents in two ways, as shown in Table 3:
Review of the target
Requestor
Review process
Articles based on

Other normative documents (the State Council, except with other regulatory documents
Review the applicant
The right to review the provisions dealing with the authorities, it shall within 30 days according to the law, no right, they shall within 7 days of transfer in accordance with legal procedures the executive power to deal with according to law, the right to handle the administrative organ shall, within 60 days according to law treatment. treatment period, the suspension of the review of the specific administrative act.

<<Administrative Review>> Article 7, Article 26

All the abstract administrative acts (including the executive, legislative and other normative documents
None (review agency initiative to review
Review authorities have the power, they shall within 30 days according to the law, no right, they shall within 7 days of transfer in accordance with legal procedures dealing with the national authorities have the right according to law. Treatment period, the suspension of the review of the specific administrative act.

<<Administrative Review>> Links in Article 27 of the Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com 3, administrative proceedings on file with other regulatory review of the system
According to <<Supreme Court on the implementation of <Administrative Procedure Law> Interpretation of Several Issues>> Article 62, paragraph 2, the people's courts hear administrative cases, you can reference other normative legal documents efficiently. In other words, even if other norms valid documents, the court does not have to apply. Clearly, this and other regulatory documents do not belong to the relevant legislation .2004 <<Supreme Court on handling administrative cases, laws and regulations applicable to the seminar on the problem>> also provides other regulatory document is not an official source of law, on the people's courts are not legally binding normative sense, the people's court, after review of the specific administrative act that the defendant and other regulatory documents based on legal, valid and reasonable, appropriate and identified the defendant in the legality of specific administrative act shall recognize the validity of the people in the Magistrates Court on grounds other normative documents are legal, valid, reasonable or proper conduct of the review. [10] "Review of" very vague term to use, the surface not see the review, but review the contents of the point of view, since there are divided between legal and illegal, effective and invalid points, the rational and irrational points, appropriate and inappropriate points, in fact, already has a review function.

(B record review of the coordination with other review system
1, with the change or revocation of system coordination
(1 record review whether the authority should have the right to change or withdrawal?
Review of the record review the effectiveness of expression? From "<Legislation Law" "and" <Supervision Law "> provisions of view, is to change the final form of the review or revocation, therefore, for the record review authority must also have the right to change or cancellation . But, in reality, there are still some record review did not change or revoke the authority the right circumstances, for example, provincial local laws and regulations to the record submitted to the NPC Standing Committee and the State Council, the NPC Standing Committee to annul the Constitution, laws, administrative regulations, local laws and regulations of provincial conflict, but the State Council's local laws and regulations at the provincial level there is no change or revoke the right to review this record is bound to produce great damage effects.

(2 record review and change or revocation in the end is a system or two systems?
As for the record review bodies must have the right to change or revoke the same time, record review and vary or rescind the same is an afterthought, take the initiative to review, which triggered a record to review and change or revocation in the end is a system or two different regime. I prefer to review the record to change or withdrawal as a specific implementation methods. because the change or revocation of system, although already in existence, but because of the lack of relevant procedures, such as revocation of authority to change or at what time, what cases, the exercise of the right to change or cancellation, so the system has been in "idle" state. And for the record review system is established, particularly linked to the record review, it can be said to provide an opportunity to review bodies, which can "activate" the entire system.

But look at this idea at this stage may also be only a "good" because the record system, although the review system and to change or cancellation, there are many similarities, but also incompatible with the place. First of all, change or remove to a large extent the scope of the review in the record, for example, the NPC Standing Committee enacted laws, resolutions, decisions and an autonomous regulations and separate regulations, the current record are not included in the scope of the review, only by changing the system to be reviewed or revoked. Second, the authority to change or revoke authority to review more than the record. From "<Legislation Law" "and" <supervision Law "> of the provisions that, for the record review authority is limited to the Standing Committee and the Government, but the right to change or revoke the authority in addition to including the National People's Congress. Thus, the record does not fully cover the review and to change or withdrawal. However, if these are two different systems, so is bound to have both the outcome of the review the issue of coordination. such as for the level of government decisions, orders, peer review of the Standing Committee is the authority for the record, and higher levels of government the right to change or revoke. If the peer review of the Standing Committee of the record conclusions and higher levels of government to change or withdraw conclusions in conflict, how to coordinate ? This will be a very big problem. [11] Therefore, I suggest, should be reviewed as soon as the filing system and to change or revoke the system unified.

2, and the review of the administrative review system in coordination with
<<Administrative Review>> requirements of other regulatory documents on the fringe-type examination, although the surface is a dispute arose with the case, but the review is the review authority or agency, or other power to deal with the authorities, and where "there is the right to handle "means the right to change or cancel, so the administrative reconsideration of the review of other normative documents the effectiveness and administrative proceedings are different, not the case do not apply, but the abolition of a void ab initio. Now The problem is that: (1 review authority or power to deal with other regulatory authorities documents on the review of the record review system to coordinate with? In my opinion, the same as if the review authority, the filing of the document review is reconsideration of the reconsideration organ or organs empowered to deal with authority, then, based on the principle of equality, the review authority to review compliance with his earlier decision. But if the filing of the document review and reconsideration of the reconsideration organ organ or organs is not empowered to deal with the same authority, such as by <<Supervision Act >> requirements at all levels of government decisions and orders of the record review body is the Standing Committee of the level, but if the review body is on the level of government, and the level of government has the right to change or revoke the decision, order, this time to generate the level of government on whether to comply with the previous Standing Committee of the level of the decisions and orders of the review of the issue. this is in fact the aforementioned change or abolish the conflict between the filing and examination. (2 review, the parties satisfied with the results of the review, and administrative proceedings, in the proceedings, the court has already reviewed the reconsideration of other regulatory documents how to review? In my opinion, when the administrative review in the courts should respect the results of the review of the document without re-examined. because, according to <<Administrative Review>> requirements, review of other regulatory documents in the review process is actually a direct repeal, the review authority the power to annul, and their repeal, the reconsideration organ has no right abolished, transferred the power to annul the authority has canceled, but no matter who is abolished, have universal validity. and administrative litigation court review of other regulatory documents is not only applicable, effective only with the case, therefore, administrative review has been abolished in other regulatory documents, the court should be subject to repeal the effectiveness of the firm shall not apply.

3, and administrative proceedings incidental to the coordination of the review system
Due to administrative proceedings for the review of other regulatory documents with the case only effect, so if the record before the court hearing the review authority to the other regulatory documents to determine whether or not to make a legitimate, then the court during the trial, review should be based on the record to determine the authority to decide whether the application of the other normative documents, as filed with the review bodies to determine the general effect. Conversely, if the Court has applied in the case of some other regulatory documents, and then the other normative record review of agency files are revoked, then the parties or the court should be allowed to start the retrial procedure to correct the sentence.





Notes:
[1] The definition of reference to the <<Administrative Procedure Law>> Article 12 paragraph 2, and "<Supreme Court on the implementation of <Administrative Procedure Law> Interpretation of Several Issues>> Article 2.


[2] From "<Legislation Law"> Article 93, paragraph 2, point of view, the CMC can also be formulated decisions and orders.


[3] Cai Jian: <"China People's Congress system>>, Law Press, 2003 edition, p. 316-317 pages.


[4] Niu: <<rule-making power of the Supreme Court: Comparison and Reference - The United States and Japan to resolve objects the Supreme Court> ", in Left Min: <<Supreme Research">, the legal publishing Club 2004 edition, p. 149.


[5] to review by the National People's Congress, on the one hand to do their own judges of their own too, on the other hand, the NPC annual session is very short, not capable of record reviews.


[6] legal idea of duality is the father of German Public Law, Paul Laband first proposed in 1871, see Beijing: <<Statutory the legal nature of the budget - released 520 words to explain the review> ", in Liu hole, Chen Xinmin : <<Constitutional Interpretation Theory and Practice> "(the third series. the next volume, the Academia Sinica Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zhongshan 2002 edition, p. 276-283 pages.


[7] Wu Zhu Xian: <"Command and administrative rules of the difference between>", in Wu Zhu Xian: <<Public Topics Research "" (under the 1991 edition from the Journal, the first 240-243 pages.


[8] Ibid, p. 246.


[9] in Henan Province, the administrative organ established by official documents only, as of December 23, 2008 reached 675,033, of which only the real normative 97,504, accounting for about 1 / 7. See Ma Huaide: <<improve the filing and examination system of normative documents Reflections>>, organized by the National People's Congress Law Committee, "the review of regulatory documents filed Symposium" conference papers.


[10] Hu Jinguang: <<Comparative Judicial Review Research ">, the Chinese People's University Press, 2006, p. 339-342 pages.


[11] Some comrades believe that, if the change or revocation of authorities and record the conclusions of the review authority conflict, should be the main conclusions of the Standing Committee, which is based on the configuration of power considerations. I believe that, if it is to change or revoke authorities and record review body is the same level or a hierarchical, relatively easy to coordinate. but like the article about the higher levels of government to change or withdraw the Standing Committee of the record conclusions and conclusions of the review at lower levels of conflict, how to make higher levels of government listen to the lower NPC Standing still can not solve. Links http://www.hi138.com Research Papers Download