


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

 
 

87 

Original Paper 

Legal Object Control of Major Administrative Decisions 

Fu Kaiyu
1
 

1
 Law School of Guangxi University, Guangxi, Nanning, China 

 

Received: May 1, 2024       Accepted: May 25, 2024       Online Published: May 27, 2024 

doi:10.22158/elp.v7n1p87                 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v7n1p87 

 

Abstract 

Major administrative decisions have the characteristics of wide scope of influence and long duration. 

Since the promulgation of the Interim Regulations on the Procedure of Major Administrative Decisions, 

the situation that decisions cannot be depended on has been initially solved. However, there are still 

certain difficulties regarding the object of the legal relationship of major administrative decisions. The 

scope of major administrative decisions is ambiguous, and the dynamic object is dominated by the 

participation of the public and experts, which cannot guarantee the scientific and democratic 

decision-making. Therefore, this paper proposes to limit the scope of major administrative decisions 

statically and strengthen the participation of experts and the public scientifically and democratically. 

Keywords 

major administrative decision-making, decision-making scope, risk assessment, expert consultation, 

public participation 

 

1. Introduction 

In 2019, The State Council promulgated the Interim Regulations on Major Administrative 

Decision-making Procedures (hereinafter referred to as the Interim Regulations), which is a milestone 

in the legislation of major administrative decisions and solves the situation that major administrative 

decisions cannot be relied upon. However, in the time after promulgation, the legalization of 

decision-making still faces some practical problems, such as: the loopholes of the “decision-making 

catalogue system” lead to the risk of the “Interim Regulations” being shelved, and the scope of “major” 

and “decision-making” is clarified. All these problems are important issues in the legalization of the 

regulation before, during and after administrative decision-making in practice. The Implementation 

Outline of the Rule of Law Government (2021-2025) also points out that in the future, the system 

construction of major administrative decisions is also one of the important indicators of the 

construction of the rule of law government. Although the major administrative decision-making 

procedure system has been established initially, the practical problems from the should to the reality 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

88 

have not been properly dealt with. 

Nowadays, administrative decision-making has become one of the important bases for administrative 

organs to make specific administrative acts, which has a close connection with the work of the public, 

enterprises and other organizations. Therefore, when discussing the rule of law government and 

administration according to law, ignoring the existence of administrative decision-making will make 

administrative decision-making as a front-end and basic administrative activity produce a crisis of the 

rule of law. As a major administrative decision which is different from the general administrative 

decision, its rule of law is the first problem to be solved. 

 

2. The Scope of Static Object Is Fuzzy 

Administrative decision is the generalization of decision matters in the administrative field, and it is 

also the concretization of decision matters. However, there is some ambiguity in the qualitative of 

decision. To promote the legalization level of major administrative decisions, the first thing to be 

solved is the problem of the right and wrong of decision-making, which is also the basis of clarifying 

the whole scope of administrative decision-making. The explanation of decision making in Cihai is: “In 

the process of transforming the world, people seek and decide on a certain optimal goal and action 

plan”, focusing on the process of selecting the plan, which is a top-level design. After the decision is 

made at the upper level, the choices and decisions made by the lower level to the specific decision 

implementation process also belong to the management definition of decision making, which is in the 

large system of macro decision making. However, in government decision-making, after the higher 

government makes a decision, the choice of the lower government in the process of implementation is 

also included in the decision-making matters that need regulation, and the decision-making matters are 

very likely to be detailed to every choice of the grass-roots staff or institutions, and the matters that 

need regulation will be derived from endless possibilities. For example, some local governments do not 

have a good understanding of the nature of decision-making, and confuse decision-making with 

implementation when defining the scope of matters. In the relevant provisions of major administrative 

decisions formulated by Sichuan Province, major matters that implement important instructions and 

decisions of higher authorities, party committees and people’s congresses at the same level are also 

considered as major administrative decisions. Although “matters requiring decision-making” is 

emphasized in the latter part of the provisions, the “decision-making” here refers to the specific 

operational process of implementing the superior’s instructions, and the decision-making matters have 

been fully demonstrated and evaluated by the superior authorities, and should be implemented. Outside 

the scope of the decision. In addition to Sichuan, there are Qinghai, Guizhou and other provinces. At 

the same time, the Hubei provincial government has also incorporated the government work report into 

the scope of major administrative decisions. The government work report is a summary of the past 

period of the government’s term of office and the plan for the future period of the government’s term of 

office, which involves both, has been done in the past and what it plans to do in the future. The first 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

89 

thing that needs to be questioned is that the past work should not belong to the scope of 

decision-making. Secondly, in the future work, most of the macro and abstract and principled 

provisions are not necessarily the same as the matters of decision-making. An important reason for this 

problem is that governments at all levels cannot accurately understand the connotation of the word 

itself and the “catalogue system” devolves power belonging to the scope of major administrative 

decisions to the county government. 

It can be seen that there are certain differences in the understanding of decision-making organs. If there 

is no consensus on whether it is a decision or not, and if there is no sufficient distinction between 

decision making and implementation, the boxes of relevant regulations will only become bigger and 

bigger, thus tying the hands and feet of grass-roots governments, affecting the efficiency and quality of 

government decision-making, and going further and further away from the goal of service-oriented and 

streamlined government transformation. 

 

3. Dynamic Object Administrative Dominant Color 

The main participants in major administrative decisions: “The government, experts and the public have 

a symbiotic relationship, and experts and the public are an important entry point for legal regulation of 

major administrative decisions”. Major administrative decisions are diversified in structure and have a 

certain open development direction, thus from the main body who makes decisions at the beginning to 

who participates in the making of administrative decisions. However, the status of the subjects involved 

in decision-making is not in the same dimension. In other words, not all subjects related to 

administrative decision-making will formally participate in administrative decision-making, and even if 

the subjects have participated, they do not have the same weight. The degree of influence of different 

subjects on the decision result is quite different. 

In the government and external participants: (1) Government and experts. The independence of experts 

is an important guarantee for the decision-making mechanism to play the role of scientific 

decision-making. However, in reality, experts often have a strong “administrative color”, or are 

selected by the government from the expert pool, which has a certain “obedience” meaning. Secondly, 

the experts selected may have other capacities, either administrative or “constrained” by administrative 

agencies. Thirdly, in the adoption of expert opinions to adopt the “favorable listening, unfavorable 

avoidance” approach. For example, in 2003, experts participated in the decision making of the Nu 

River Dam construction project in Yunnan province. The Nujiang main stream hydropower 

development plan was reviewed by experts organized by the National Development and Reform 

Commission. According to the final plan, the project is expected to bring economic benefits of more 

than 30 billion yuan to the local area. However, in the process of concrete demonstration, there are two 

different expert opinions. The opposing side believes that the construction of Nujiang hydropower 

station will bring certain harm to the local ecological environment, and the specific economic benefits 

are also questioned. In August of the same year, the State Environmental Protection Bureau organized 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

90 

two expert talks, during which the experts in the Kunming forum were divided according to the way of 

“household registration”, forming a “North-South separation”, the experts from Beijing were opposed, 

and the experts in Yunnan were supportive. But in order to get the project off the ground, the leaders of 

Nujiang Prefecture went to Beijing to report. At the survey a month later, not a single expert 

participated. Experts who were previously opposed to it have also gone silent. It treated the decision on 

the Nu River project as “a game of selecting experts”. Although expert consulting system is started, but 

the substance has changed. Dissenting opinions are suppressed, used when needed and discarded when 

not needed. This has undoubtedly discouraged experts from participating in decision-making. It also 

makes us think about the status of experts in decision-making and how the independent attribute of 

experts can be guaranteed. In this case, the relationship between the experts and the government 

becomes a “tool” for the government to achieve the purpose of decision-making. (2) Government and 

the public. The non-benign interaction between the government and the public is an important factor 

that needs to be clarified urgently. A decision ultimately benefits the target group of the decision, 

namely the public. Therefore, the positive interaction between decision-making power and citizenship 

is needed at the beginning of decision-making. In reality, decision-making power is dominant, while 

the public is passive. Moreover, due to the unbalanced economic and social development in China, the 

social public’s awareness of participating in decision-making is also unbalanced, and the resources that 

different regions can deploy to participate in decision-making are inconsistent. To stimulate the 

public’s awareness of participation, it is necessary for decision-making organs to play an active role. 

Whether it is the strengthening of the form of public participation in legislation, or the adoption and 

reasoning of public opinions, it is an important manifestation of the positive interaction between the 

government and the public. The relationship between the government and the public in 

decision-making should be like a guide, bringing the public into the operation of the decision-making 

system and providing various conditions for them to express their opinions. (3) Experts and the public. 

Experts are an important way to communicate technical rationality, while the public is an important 

subject of communication rationality. Only when the communicative rationality and technical 

rationality play a full role can the science and democracy of decision-making be adequately guaranteed. 

But in the absence of both, decisions fall into the trap of irrational decisions. In the real 

decision-making, the decision-making organs confuse the experts with the public, and the situation 

occurs that the experts take the place of the public or the experts are members of the public. 

To sum up, the clear and reasonable connection between the government, the executive and the upper 

and lower levels of the decision-making organs and the external network of decision-making among the 

government, experts and the public is an important guarantee for scientific and democratic 

decision-making. Only in the clear determination of the internal relationship and the accurate 

positioning of the respective functions of the government and the external, can a decision return to the 

essence and achieve the goal of the decision efficiently. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

91 

4. The Legal Object Control of Major Administrative Decisions 

The object of administrative legal relations is “the object and object that administrative legal relations 

point to, and the carrier that embodies certain interests, which mainly includes things, behaviors and 

people”. Under this theoretical framework, the legal object of major administrative decision is a 

compound object, including the concept of major administrative decision itself and the participation 

behavior of the government, experts and the public. The government’s participation behavior runs 

through the whole process of decision-making, and control from the perspective of experts and the 

public can indirectly achieve the purpose of controlling government behavior. Therefore, as far as 

experts and the public are concerned, risk assessment, expert consultation and public participation are 

the key objects. In the high risk, systematic and complex decision-making environment, both the 

practical and theoretical circles generally agree on the need to play the role of experts. For major 

administrative decisions with extremely high complexity, the opinions of professionals in the field are 

more needed. In order to satisfy scientific decision making and rational decision making, risk 

assessment and expert consultation system is an important legal system of decision making technology 

rationalization. In view of democracy, it is necessary to establish communication rationality effectively 

in the way of public participation. The static object and dynamic object blend with each other, can not 

constitute the legal relation object of major administrative decision alone. 

4.1 Conceptual Limitation: Redefinition of Major and Decision Making 

4.1.1 The Right and Wrong of Administrative Decision-Making 

To determine the scope of administrative decision-making, two conditions need to be met. The first is 

that it belongs to the scope of administrative authority, and the second is that it belongs to the scope of 

decision-making. The former requires the decision-making subject not to cross the boundary, not to be 

authorized by the law, neither to do things that have no power to manage, nor to do things that are not 

within their jurisdiction. The latter requires that the relevant matters cannot be equated with other 

administrative acts, such as administrative licensing, administrative penalties, etc., and cannot involve 

existing legal provisions. However, some local governments fail to understand the essence of 

decision-making in the concrete decision-making process, resulting in a chaotic situation. Some 

governments have even incorporated the revision of local regulatory documents into the scope of 

adjustment of major administrative decisions. If “Revision of Implementation Measures for Reporting 

Environmental Violations with Awards in Enshi Prefecture (Trial)”, and “Overall Management 

Measures for Tourism Resources in Enshi Prefecture” are included in the catalogue of major 

administrative decisions in 2023 formulated by the People’s Government of Enshi Prefecture in Hubei 

Province, the first question is whether the “revision” is within the scope of decision-making. Secondly, 

according to the Interim Regulations and the relevant procedures and regulations for major 

administrative decisions of Enshi Prefecture, “formulation” is stipulated, and “revision” cannot be 

equated with “formulation” here. Therefore, it is not difficult to find that there are certain differences 

between the provisions of local governments on decision-making and the original intention of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

92 

legislation, and local governments regard decision-making as “pocket behavior” without fully 

understanding the nature of decision-making matters. According to the legal definition of 

administrative decision-making explored in Chapter 1, there are certain legal rights and obligations 

when administrative decision-making is made. At the same time, administrative decision-making 

should also be distinguished from the existing administrative acts, legislative power, personnel power, 

etc. that have been regulated by law, and cannot involve the scope of adjustment by other department 

laws. In addition, emergency matters should also be excluded from the scope of regulation, because 

emergency matters often need to make quick decisions and should be restricted by the process as little 

as possible, so as to cope with emergencies. For example, the Wuhan epidemic in 2020 was forced to 

take the decision to close the city, which would pose a great threat to the life safety of the people if the 

decision was subject to the strict regulation of the process and the procedure was too cumbersome. 

4.1.2 Significant Scope Boundaries 

The boundary of the scope of “significant” can be understood as the boundary between “significant” 

and “general”, because the word “significant” is more abstract, and with the change of time, it is easy 

to cause some new things that are difficult to judge or do not belong to the scope of “significant”, with 

the change of society, it becomes the scope of “significant”. Therefore, we can consider clarifying the 

scope of “general” from the opposite side so as to better solve the boundary problem between the two. 

First of all, in terms of the number of decisions made, “general” refers to frequent decisions made by 

the government on a daily basis, which is characterized by high frequency. Secondly, from the 

perspective of the subject of the decision, the subject of the decision of general matters is often of a 

lower legal rank, and most of the matters are decided by the grass-roots government, which often can 

be decided immediately without the approval process. At the same time, the subject involved in 

decision-making and implementation is relatively simple. Thirdly, from the perspective of scope and 

time, the influence scope of “general matters” is mostly within the jurisdiction of grass-roots 

governments; Decision execution time, formulation time and influence time are all transient. Finally, 

from the perspective of expected results, it is precisely because the duration of general administrative 

decisions is short that there are fewer influencing factors leading to deviation of decision results during 

the period from formulation to implementation. Therefore, the result of the decision has lower 

uncertainty and risk, and the final result can be accurately predicted. Matters other than the general 

decision-making matters mentioned above may be considered for inclusion in the “significant” 

category. 

At present, The State Council stipulates that “the policy-making organs may, in accordance with the 

provisions of the first paragraph of this article, determine the list of decisions and standards based on 

their functions and powers and local realities”. (See Article 3 of the Interim Regulations on Major 

Administrative Decision-making Procedures for details). The meaning of this article is to further 

delegate the power to determine major scope to each local decision-making organ, and to regulate the 

decision-making items that need to be standardized into the decision-making catalogue by the local 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

93 

government. As a result, local governments will not include matters that should be regulated by 

regulations in the “catalogue” according to their discretion, and regulations that should effectively 

regulate decision-making matters will not be regulated. In the end, the procedure of decision making is 

virtually useless. Therefore, the power to formulate the catalogue cannot be all delegated to each level 

of government, but it can be placed under the overall control of the municipal government, and 

reviewed by the people’s Congress at the same level and its standing committee and the government at 

a higher level. At the same time, the formulation of the contents of the catalog should not only be open, 

but also include the procedure of public participation, and the public can argue and expand those that 

have a major impact on the public interest. 

The way of reverse definition can provide certain macroscopic guidance for the forward enumeration, 

while the forward enumeration is the concretization under the macroscopic guidance. The existence of 

the two is not contradictory. Through the reverse definition and forward enumeration, the problem of 

“major or not major” can be avoided to a certain extent, which not only meets the local characteristics 

but also details the provisions of major scope, so that the decision-making can really be divided into 

complicated and simple, and the effect will be twice the result with half the effort. 

4.2 From Inside To Outside: Expert Consultation System in Major Administrative Decisions 

Once a major decision is made, it will have an all-round impact on the economy and society. For 

example, the construction of hydropower stations can solve the energy demand to meet the needs of 

economic development. However, it will have a great impact on the migration and life of aquatic 

animals involved in the waters and the local ecological environment. Therefore, the experts involved in 

a decision are all commenting on the decision from their own field. In addition, even experts in the 

same field may have different opinions, but the open form of consultation will make some experts 

afraid to speak up. At the same time, the weight and legal status of expert opinions in the 

decision-making process are also important factors affecting the scientificity of decision-making 

results. 

4.2.1 Differences of Opinion among Experts 

How to deal with the opinions and suggestions of experts and how to unify the different opinions of 

different experts are important issues about the system of expert advice. In management, there are 

many ways to learn from expert survey, such as the French DUP and public consultation and 

investigation procedures; The Delphi method in the United States. The former is a declaration in the 

public interest of administrative decisions and programmes in certain areas for which the Prime 

Minister and ministers or local administrators are responsible. The decision-making process is carried 

out after the declaration and on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Committee and even the 

Administrative Court. The latter is a “back-to-back” way to get expert advice and make a decision. 

Among them, the Delphi investigation method in the United States not only satisfies the independence 

requirement of decision-making, but also allows experts to fully express opinions on each other’s 

suggestions, which is one of the ways worth learning. It originated in the 1940s and takes a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

94 

non-face-to-face approach to expert opinion gathering. It will collect opinions in an anonymous manner 

through surveys in the form of questionnaires. Feedback is given to the various experts, and the process 

continues until a consensus is reached. The main rules of the approach are as follows: the name of the 

expert is not disclosed, and the expert is mainly carried out by communication. Anonymous feedback 

contact, experts from the feedback feedback of the collective opinions and reasons and put forward 

their own views to form the anonymous mutual influence among experts; Do quantitative processing of 

the final result of the opinion Adopting this method can avoid experts’ concurs because of others’ 

opinions to a certain extent, and minimize the influence of experts’ authority. Enhance the 

independence of experts and encourage all experts to express their views fully. 

4.2.2 External Acceptance of Expert Advice 

As one of the subsystems in the whole decision-making system, expert consultation argumentation 

should be recognized as its position and function in it. Good communication between the expert and the 

administration is of particular value and significance for the scope of the expert’s opinion. However, 

most of the experts are intensive research talents in a certain field, and the scientific nature of the 

decision is only a standard for the judgment of facts, and the choice of value needs to be judged by the 

decision-making organs themselves. Just as the government decides to build an urban park, 

construction experts are concerned about the construction standards, but the government needs to 

consider various aspects such as budget, residents’ sense of gain, and environmental impact. In addition, 

experts in different fields, even experts in the same field, will have different opinions and 

disagreements. At this point, how decision-makers choose between them is a question for each 

individual. At present, it is generally believed that experts play a positive role in strengthening the 

rationality of administrative decision-making. The author believes that dichotomies should be adopted 

in the process of expert consultation, positioning experts as the subject of fact judgment. It is forbidden 

to adopt the views of experts on the value judgment of decision-making matters, just as it is to treat the 

testimony of witnesses and the attitude of expert assistants in court proceedings. At the same time, in 

order to encourage experts to speak and participate, on the one hand, the experts are given material 

rewards and spiritual awards to ensure their enthusiasm to participate in decision-making. On the other 

hand, when the experts express their opinions, they should not only strictly maintain the confidentiality 

of the problems and suggestions told by the experts, but also not pursue their responsibilities because 

the experts express any opinions, and they should be absolutely strict in immunity and confidentiality. 

4.3 From One-Way Dominance to Two-Way Interaction: Public Participation Mechanism in Major 

Administrative Decisions 

Public participation in decision-making is considered to be a kind of broad and direct participation. The 

administrative practice circles generally reflect that public participation is the most important and 

difficult part of decision-making procedure. The main reasons are: “The function of public participation 

is unclear”; “There are problems with the idea of operating public participation”. At the same time, in 

practice, public opinions are often unilaterally listened to in a mode dominated by administrative 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

95 

organs, while there are few public inquiries and debates between the two sides. 

4.3.1 How Public Representation Is Produced 

The universality of representatives has an important impact on the democracy of the hearing system. 

After the hearing system was first introduced to listen to public opinions, problems such as the lack of 

universality of representatives, unreasonable way of representation and lack of representative ability 

were exposed until now, it has not been well solved. 

At present, there are three main types of public representation: (1) administration-oriented government 

selection mode, (2) random selection mode under moderate administrative control, and (3) application 

of low administrative control-representative mode. The first is the early mode in which the government 

selects and determines the representatives participating in decision-making, which reflects strong 

government control. For example, Article 4 of the Interim Provisions on the Hearing of Qingdao Price 

Decision stipulates that “the hearing shall be organized by the municipal price control department. The 

Planning Commission, the Economic Commission, the Construction Commission, the Finance Bureau, 

the Statistics Bureau, the Civil Affairs Bureau, the Federation of Trade Unions and other departments 

and units are the members of the conference; At the same time, the municipal People’s Congress, the 

CPPCC, the democratic parties, the relevant business departments, enterprises and news units of the 

relevant experts, consumer representatives to participate”. Under this model, the decision-making 

organs will enjoy the initiative of participating representatives, and the public will only have the right 

to be chosen. In this way, the decision-making department of the government can grasp the direction of 

decision-making and produce the results that the decision-making department wants to happen. So it 

gives the public a feeling of going through the motions. The second is for the public to sign up 

voluntarily, and then for the decision-making organ to choose among the registered public. Although 

this system has strengthened the enthusiasm of the public to participate, the final participants are still 

the result of the selection of decision-making departments. Such selection is nominally random, but in 

fact it is the space for decision-making departments to operate in private. The government has free rein 

in how it randomizes. The third option is for the public to elect their own representatives, and when the 

public cannot elect their own representatives, the government will intervene. The third is to fully 

mobilize the enthusiasm and initiative of the public, which is a more reasonable model than the first 

two. But there are also differences in the selection of representatives by the public, the qualification of 

the selection, illegal operations, the selection system guarantee, the funding guarantee. Therefore, it is 

necessary to institutionalize the third mode through separate legislation to strengthen the satisfaction of 

the public as the decision-making subject. After the public representative is elected, the next step is 

how to implement the public’s rights in the hearing system. 

4.3.2 We Will Strengthen the Hearing System with Debate as the Core 

Although the Provisional Regulations and local norms provide for various forms of public participation, 

the hearing, as a formal procedure for hearing opinions, has special significance in the value and 

function of public participation in administrative decision-making. The value of hearings is that they 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

96 

are both a means of disseminating information, a channel for advocacy, a means of reconciling 

differences between different interest groups, and a safety valve for mitigating and eliminating 

interference. In practice, the current public opinion listening method in our country mostly adopts the 

way of “speech” to provide opinions for decision-making organs. For example, in the “Norms for 

Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures of the People’s Government of Enshi Prefecture”, 

the way of public participation is the result of the independent choice of the administrative organ. In 

Article 8, the way of listening to opinions and feedback can be carried out in an online way.as you can 

see the way does not reflect the argumentative spirit of the hearing. There are also local governments 

that use hearings as a form of “when necessary”. The definition of “necessary” is not explained, which 

gives decision-making departments space and room for independent choice. In addition, administrative 

regulations only stipulate that the decision-making departments can adopt the form of hearings. No 

matter the legislation at the central level or the local level, the form of public participation is decided 

by the decision-making departments and enjoys a high degree of discretion. Public participation should 

establish a two-way communication mechanism, and this “rational communication system is the key 

link of the effectiveness of the hearing”. Therefore, a “circular” debate mechanism should be 

established in the hearing to fully question and demonstrate. One is the choice of hearing host. It shall 

be composed of persons in a non-government capacity or persons from the judicial system to ensure the 

neutrality of the presiding officer of the hearing. The role of the moderator in the process of hearing is 

mainly to guide the smooth progress of the process and clarify the focus of the dispute. Second, in the 

process of hearing, we should refer to the process of court debate in litigation, and establish the process 

of communication and exchange between the two sides as an essential link. This link is also the core of 

the hearing. In this session, the question and answer method is adopted to solve the doubts of the public, 

so as to facilitate the public to raise questions and understand the demands of the public. Third, the 

legal effect of the hearing record. The legal effect of the hearing record should be clearly taken as one 

of the basis for decision-making, if the voice of doubt is too large, it is necessary to adopt multiple 

hearings to adjust the existing plan or directly terminate the way. For the opinions that are not adopted, 

it is also necessary for the decision-making organs to respond positively and explain the reasons so as 

to obtain the support of the public. Only when the hearing record is legally recognized and obtained 

binding force, can the spirit of argument be implemented. In addition, the subject of the application 

hearing and the application should not be limited to the decision-making organ or even the 

administrative system, but can be organized by a third-party social organization or other public 

authority independent of the administrative system, so as to ensure the “benign interaction” of the 

hearing. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

97 

5. Conclusion 

Administrative decision-making has entered the law from the outside of the law, which itself is the 

inevitable requirement of the construction of the rule of law in China. Under the background of the 

construction of modern rule of law government in full swing, administrative decision-making, such a 

front-end and basic administrative activity, has been unable to escape the regulation of law. The 

tripartite decision-making chain formed by decision-making organs, experts and the public has become 

an important experience to improve administrative decision-making. Major administrative decisions, as 

the most special kind of administrative decisions, are different from general administrative decisions at 

the beginning, and their essential characteristics are non-frequent, extensive scope of influence, 

persistence of time and complexity of consideration factors. This also determines that it should be 

regulated with stricter norms when making decisions, whether it is in the participation behavior of the 

main body, the establishment of the network of participation and supervision of the main body in 

related decisions. In terms of static objects, strict regulations on “major” and institutional construction 

of public and expert participation in decision-making should avoid the failure of the rule of law. 

   

References 

A porsche, nujiang dam decision in the tripartite interest game [EB/OL]. (2004-4-20) [2024-3-26]. 

Retrieved from https://www.chinanews.com/n/2004-04-20/26/427537.html. 

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.COT.0000292958.98529.49 

Chen, A. M. (2014). Research on risk assessment system of major administrative decisions. Jinan: 

Shandong University. 

China Youth Network, illegal construction! “The world’s biggest” the duke guan like built in 170 million, 

and then spend 155 million move [EB/OL]. (2021-09-03) [2024-3-26]. Retrieved from 

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1709844494473798417&wfr=spider &for=pc 

Doris, G. (2007). The Power of Communication: Information Management in Public Organizations (X. 

K. Zhang, Tran.). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. 

Gong, X. T. (2021). Exploration on the realization path of the effectiveness of the hearing System for 

major administrative Decisions. Journal of Hunan Police College, 33(04). 

Liu, G. F., & Chen, X. L. (2008). Project risk assessment based on Delphi Method and Analytic 

Hierarchy Process. Project Management Technology, 2008(01). 

Liu, H. (2020). On the Rule of Law Regulation of Major Administrative Decisions. Zhejiang University 

Law Review, 2020(00). 

Su, Y. J. (2011). Research on the legalization of Administrative Decision-making. Beijing: China Legal 

Publishing House. 

Wang, W. H., Jing, L., & Bo, X. (2004). Current Situation and Problems of Administrative Decision 

hearing in China. Xinhua Digest, 2004(05). 

https://www.chinanews.com/n/2004-04-20/26/427537.html
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.COT.0000292958.98529.49


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp              Economics, Law and Policy                  Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 

 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

98 

Wang, X. J. (2007). The paradox of expert consultation system in Public policy making in China and its 

overcoming: Taking the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a reference. Legal Business Studies, 

2007(02). 

William, K., & Maurice, O. (2019). The Legislative Process in the United States: Congress and the 

States (B. M. Wang, & Z. F. Yao, Trans.). Beijing: Law Press. 

Xiao, B. G. (2015). Research on the Legalization of Administrative Decision-making. Beijing: Law 

Press. 

Yin, Y. Y. (2013). Research on Legalization of Major Administrative decisions of grassroots 

governments. Changsha: Hunan Normal University. 

Ying, S. N. (2009). Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation Law (2nd Edition). Beijing: Law 

Press. 

Zhang, Y. (2014). Research on Risk assessment System of Major Administrative Decisions in China. 

Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University. 

 


