


































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

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

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

91 
 

Original Paper 

Research on the Application of the Collective Discussion System for 

Administrative Officials in Maritime Administrative Penalties 

Feihan Sun
1
, Yu Tian

1
, Zhaobin Pei

1*
 & Muxue Yang

1
 

1
 Dalian Ocean University, Dalian, Liaoning, China 

 

Received: June 30, 2025        Accepted: July 9, 2025       Online Published: July 10, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n2p91               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n2p91 

 

Abstract 

The collective discussion and decision-making system of administrative heads in maritime administrative 

penalties combines internal democratic decision-making, power balance attributes, and special internal 

administrative procedural characteristics. The current system has the problem of unclear applicable 

standards, and normative documents at or above the provincial level have not elaborated on situations 

such as “complex circumstances” and “major violations”, resulting in excessive discretionary power of 

administrative agencies and significant differences in handling similar cases in practice. In this regard, 

the applicable situations can be refined from three dimensions: the clear procedural requirements focus 

on the amount threshold and rigid procedural requirements, the composite standard discretion type 

covers professional identification difficulties, legal application disputes, and evidence chain doubts, and 

the social impact assessment type focuses on the group effects and media attention caused by the case, in 

order to regulate maritime administrative penalties and ensure the rational use of marine resources. 

Keywords 

Administrative penalties in maritime areas, collective discussion system, applicable standards, improved 

procedures 

 

1. Introduction 

At present, with the vigorous development of the marine economy and the deepening of the strategy of 

building a maritime power, there are frequent activities in the development and utilization of sea areas, 

which puts higher demands on the fairness and scientificity of administrative penalties in sea areas. The 

importance of the collective discussion and decision-making system among administrative officials is 

becoming increasingly prominent. Early maritime regulations provided relatively simple provisions for 

this system, but with the development of maritime rule of law, although it has been refined, problems 

frequently arise in practice. Based on this background, this article selects typical cases of maritime 

administrative penalties based on existing marine regulations, deeply explores their applicable legal 

issues, draws on useful experience, and strives to improve the system, providing effective ideas and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

92 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

methods for regulating maritime administrative penalties and ensuring the rational use of marine 

resources, and assisting in the construction of maritime rule of law. 

 

2. The Nature of the Collective Discussion System among the Heads of Administrative Agencies in 

Maritime Administrative Penalties 

To analyze the nature of this system, it is necessary to approach it from multiple perspectives: it involves 

the functions of internal democratic decision-making and power balance, as well as the attributes of 

special internal administrative procedures, and is also related to the theoretical disputes and consensus of 

internal and external procedures. The following analysis will be conducted layer by layer. 

2.1 Reflection of Internal Democratic Decision Making and Power Balance 

The collective discussion procedure is an important mechanism for democratic decision-making within 

administrative agencies, and its core value lies in optimizing the quality of decision-making through 

collective wisdom while constraining the abuse of administrative power. Jiang Ming’an divides 

administrative democracy into two forms: external democracy and internal democracy. The former 

emphasizes public participation (such as hearings and publicity systems), while the latter focuses on 

procedural norms within the administrative system (such as collective discussions and hierarchical 

approvals) (Jiang, M. A., 2023, pp. 13-17). In the field of administrative penalties, collective discussions 

are mainly applicable to two types of special cases: cases with complex illegal circumstances and cases 

involving major illegal acts. Such cases often have high social sensitivity or difficulty in legal application, 

and require collective discussion to ensure the legality and rationality of the punishment decision. 

From the perspective of institutional design, the collective discussion procedure has a dual function: on 

the one hand, it provides a platform for law enforcement personnel to express professional opinions, 

which helps overcome personal cognitive limitations; On the other hand, it achieves a balance between 

efficiency and fairness through the operation mechanism of democratic centralism (i.e., “collective 

discussion + executive decision-making”). It is worth noting that this institutional arrangement is not 

purely “democratic decision-making”, but retains the final decision-making power of the executive head 

and requires them to bear corresponding responsibilities, effectively avoiding the dilemma of “collective 

responsibility but no one is responsible”. 

2.2 Special Internal Administrative Procedures 

From the perspective of administrative procedural law, collective discussion and decision-making have 

distinct procedural characteristics. The 57th article of the revised Administrative Penalty Law in 2021 

clearly positions it as a key procedural link “after the investigation is concluded and before the penalty 

decision”, revealing its pivotal position in the process of administrative penalty. Yano Hiroshi’s theory of 

administrative process emphasizes that modern administrative law should focus on the dynamic process 

of the exercise of administrative power, rather than solely on the final decision (Jiang, L. H., 2014). 

Under this theoretical framework, collective discussion, as a key link in the formation of administrative 

decisions, has a direct impact on the legitimacy of the final punishment decision due to its procedural 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

93 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

legitimacy. 

The dichotomy of internal and external procedures proposed by Zhang Shufang provides an important 

reference for understanding the nature of collective discussion. She pointed out that internal procedures 

mainly adjust the relationships between various entities within the administrative system, while external 

procedures regulate the interaction between administrative agencies and counterparties (Zhang, S. F., 

2008, pp. 38-44). Although collective discussion is formally an internal procedure, its uniqueness lies in 

the fact that it directly determines the outcome of administrative penalties and has a substantial impact on 

the rights and obligations of the parties involved. He Haibo refers to such programs as “internal programs 

with external effectiveness”, believing that although they have no relative involvement, they can 

generate external legal effects by determining the output of content (He, H. B., 2022, p. 357). This 

particularity has led to a unique position for collective discussion procedures in the administrative 

procedural system, and has also sparked theoretical disputes over whether they should be subject to 

judicial review. 

2.3 Internal and External Program Disputes and Theoretical Consensus 

There is a clear divergence in academia regarding the legal attributes of collective discussion procedures, 

which essentially reflects different understandings of the classification standards for administrative 

procedures. Professor Ye Bifeng holds the “external program theory”, which has a distinct perspective on 

institutional evolution in its argumentation logic. He believes that with the clear provisions of the 

Administrative Penalty Law on the collective discussion system, the system has shifted from the 

traditional category of organizational law (internal rules of procedure) to the category of behavioral law 

(legal procedural requirements), especially when combined with the system of explaining reasons, which 

highlights its external procedural characteristics (Ye, B. F., 2022, pp. 31-42). This viewpoint emphasizes 

the role of legal provisions in shaping the nature of procedures and has important theoretical implications. 

However, most scholars still adhere to the “internal program theory”, which is mainly based on the 

standards of program participants. Scholars such as Zhang Shufang and He Haibo believe that the core 

criterion for determining the internal and external attributes of a program lies in whether the relative 

person participates in the program’s operation. Professor Lu Zhengfeng further deepened this viewpoint, 

proposing that internal procedures can be divided into pure internal procedures and external behavioral 

pre procedures, and categorizing collective discussions into the latter (Lu, Z. F., 2018, pp. 106-112). 

This refined classification method not only acknowledges the internal procedural nature of collective 

discussion, but also reveals its differences from general internal procedures. 

The current theoretical consensus tends to classify collective discussion as an internal procedure, but at 

the same time emphasizes its particularity: firstly, although it does not involve direct participation of the 

parties involved, it has a significant impact on the rights and interests of the parties involved; Secondly, 

as a legal procedure, its operational flaws may lead to the revocation of administrative penalty decisions; 

Finally, with the development of procedural rule of law, such internal procedures are gradually being 

included in the scope of judicial review. This understanding not only conforms to the current legal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

94 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

framework, but also responds to practical needs, providing a theoretical basis for improving the 

administrative penalty procedure system. 

 

3. Analysis of the Application Standards Issues in the Collective Discussion and Decision Making of 

Administrative Officials in Maritime Administrative Penalties 

The core issue of unclear application standards in the collective discussion procedure of administrative 

agency heads in maritime administrative penalties. The lack of specific standards for “complex 

circumstances,” “major violations,” and “heavier penalties” in normative documents at or above the 

provincial level has led to excessive discretionary power of administrative agencies in handling 

individual cases, and a lack of industry unified discretion standards guidance, resulting in chaotic 

practices. 

In the field of property penalties, there is a lack of unified standards for determining whether the amount 

of fines triggers collective discussions, which makes it difficult to ensure the fairness and credibility of 

administrative penalties. Taking the case of a breeding farm in Dalian refusing to accept the 

administrative penalty decision of a natural resources bureau (Dalian Maritime Court, Administrative 

Judgment No. (2021) Liao 72 Xingchu 12) as an example, the bureau held a hearing on the relevant 

penalty matters, but did not make a hearing record in accordance with the law. After the hearing 

procedure ended, without collective discussion by the responsible persons, an administrative penalty of 

“ordering restoration to the original state and imposing a fine of 3.2 million yuan” was imposed directly. 

The above-mentioned behavior seriously violates the legal procedures and goes against the legal 

provision that “when imposing heavier administrative penalties on complex or major illegal acts, it 

should be discussed collectively by the responsible persons”. In the end, the court revoked the 

administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law. In sharp contrast, the administrative penalty 

case of Beihai Naizhi Marine Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beihai Marine and Fisheries Bureau mentioned 

earlier. The Ocean and Fisheries Bureau of Beihai City has determined that Beihai Naizhi Marine 

Technology Co., Ltd. illegally occupies and implements the encirclement and reclamation of 0.38 

hectares of sea area. After two rounds of review (the administrative agency considers it equivalent to a 

collective discussion procedure), the bureau has finally ordered the return of the illegally occupied sea 

area, restored the original state of the sea area, and imposed a fine of RMB 2.5677 million, which is 

fifteen times the amount of sea area use fees that should be paid during the illegal occupation period. In 

these two cases, a certain breeding farm case was fined 3.2 million yuan but no collective discussion was 

held, while the Naizhi Company case was fined 2.5677 million yuan. Although the amount was relatively 

low, it was subject to collective discussion. Such differences highlight that in the application of collective 

discussions on maritime administrative penalties, various regions often set their own standards based on 

factors such as local economic level and law enforcement capabilities, resulting in unclear conditions for 

the application of collective discussions and difficulty in ensuring fairness and impartiality in law 

enforcement. In the case of Huang Guofei and Chen Xiansheng (Guangdong Provincial High People’s 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

95 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2020) Yue Xing Zhong 1770), Huangpu Customs imposed fines of 

600000 yuan and 200000 yuan respectively on the two individuals. Although the total amount was as 

high as 800000 yuan, the customs did not submit the case for collective discussion to the case review 

committee as “not meeting the standards of complex circumstances or major violations”. However, this 

judgment does not clearly define the quantitative standards of “complexity” and “significance”, nor does 

it fully consider the impact of fines on individual economies - for small and micro enterprises, such fines 

may constitute a fatal blow. Behind the different judgments in the same case is the imbalance of fairness 

and justice in different regions and cases. In the field of qualification penalties, such as revoking licenses 

and ordering production to stop, they are also deeply mired in procedural difficulties. Administrative 

agencies may avoid collective discussions based on efficiency considerations, while judicial agencies 

may have intense conflicting positions due to their emphasis on procedural fairness requirements. 

Although the Huang Guofei and Chen Xiansheng cases did not involve qualification penalties, this can 

be seen from the “selective application” of collective discussion procedures by administrative agencies - 

when the procedures may delay the efficiency of punishment, the rigor of internal decision-making 

mechanisms easily gives way to the need for quick closure. 

What is even more alarming is the confusion of program functions. Some administrative agencies and 

courts mistakenly equate “cases requiring a hearing” with the conditions for initiating collective 

discussion, but the hearing is an external defense procedure and the collective discussion is an internal 

decision-making mechanism, and their purposes are not the same. This cognitive bias is also reflected in 

the Huang Guofei and Chen Xiansheng cases: although Huangpu Customs informed the two of their 

hearing rights in accordance with the law, they directly skipped the collective discussion stage and 

imposed punishment without clearly defining whether the case met the criteria of “complex 

circumstances” and “major violations”, equating the integrity of the hearing procedure with the 

legitimacy of internal decision-making. Although judicial case judgments attempt to clarify procedural 

boundaries, they lack universal binding force and cannot eradicate the recurrence of procedural 

violations. This exposes the fragmentation and lack of coherence in procedural norms within the legal 

system, resulting in a loss of precise guidance for the operation of administrative power on the procedural 

track. 

The case of Huang Guofei and Chen Xiansheng not only reflects the reality of vague standards for the 

application of collective discussion procedures, but also reveals the deep challenges faced by procedural 

justice in the operation of administrative power. The ambiguity of legal rules, the game between 

administrative and judicial positions, and the misinterpretation of procedural functions collectively 

weave a complex network that hinders the unity of the rule of law and the realization of fairness. If the 

loopholes in the rules are not filled in a timely manner and the procedural boundaries are not clarified, the 

procedural justice in the field of administrative penalties will continue to hover in chaos, damaging not 

only the rights and interests of individual parties, but also the foundation and authority of the rule of law. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

96 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Refined Suggestions on the Application of Collective Discussion and Decision-Making by 

Administrative Agency Heads in Maritime Administrative Penalties 

Based on the legislative experience of the “Regulations on Agricultural Administrative Penalty 

Procedures” and the application of “hearings” and “legal reviews” in some regions, the author believes 

that the collective discussion of maritime administrative penalties can focus on three key dimensions. 

4.1 Clear Procedural Requirements 

The author believes that both the first and third items of the “Regulations on Agricultural Administrative 

Penalty Procedures” belong to the category of clear procedural requirements. In maritime administrative 

penalties, some cases require collective review by the head of the administrative agency due to clear 

threshold amounts and procedural requirements, and such situations have rigid binding force. Taking the 

illegal land reclamation case investigated and dealt with by the Ocean and Fisheries Bureau as an 

example, if it involves a fine of more than 500000 yuan as stipulated in the Sea Area Use Management 

Law, and the parties apply for a hearing, it belongs to a typical case with clear procedural requirements. 

Illegal land reclamation seriously damages the natural attributes and functions of marine ecosystems, 

posing a great threat to the sustainable use of marine resources. When the fine amount reaches a 

relatively high standard and the parties apply for a hearing, it indicates that the nature of the case is 

serious and concerns the significant rights and interests of the parties. At this point, collective 

deliberation can effectively gather opinions from all parties, ensuring that the punishment decision is 

accurate and error free in terms of factual determination, legal application, and procedural compliance. 

For example, in a coastal city, a large enterprise illegally reclaimed land for commercial development 

projects without legal approval. After the Ocean and Fisheries Bureau intervened in the investigation, 

according to relevant laws and regulations, it is proposed to impose a fine of 2.5677 million yuan on him. 

The enterprise applied for a hearing in accordance with the law, and the Ocean and Fisheries Bureau 

quickly initiated a collective discussion process, organizing internal legal experts, law enforcement 

backbone, and relevant business department heads to comprehensively review every detail of the case. 

During the collective discussion, in-depth discussions were conducted on the legality and relevance of 

evidence, the accurate application of legal provisions, and the reasonableness of punishment ranges. 

Ultimately, a legal and fair punishment decision was made, which not only effectively cracked down on 

illegal behavior but also safeguarded the legitimate hearing rights of enterprises (Guangxi Zhuang 

Autonomous Region High People’s Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2018) Guixingzhong 1163). 

4.2 Composite Standard Discretion Type 

For maritime disputes with complex cases, relying solely on a single standard is difficult to make 

accurate judgments, and a composite standard needs to be constructed for discretionary determination. 

Specifically, it can be refined into the following three aspects: 

4.2.1 Difficulties in Professional Identification of Illegal Facts 

The marine field is highly specialized and complex, and the determination of many illegal facts involves 

professional fields such as marine ecological damage assessment and cross ownership of sea areas. This 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

97 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

professionalism is particularly prominent in the assessment of the value of marine ecosystem services. 

For example, international standards estimate that the annual service function value of China’s four 

major sea areas is 272.806 billion US dollars, while domestic scholars’ estimates based on regional 

characteristics are only 181.36 billion US dollars, with a difference of more than 50%. This significant 

value bias is caused by different evaluation methods and indicator weights (Jiang, Y. J., 2014). As in the 

2011 Bohai Penglai 19-3 oilfield oil spill, the drilling platform operated by ConocoPhillips China 

Limited leaked hundreds of tons of oil due to leakage and seabed rock cracking, polluting the sea area of 

over 6000 square kilometers. The oil spill accident resulted in a significant decrease in the species and 

diversity of plankton in the polluted sea area, and damage to the community structure. Within one month 

after the accident, the density of planktonic larvae decreased sharply by 69%, and the density of fish eggs 

decreased by 45-83% compared to the background value (with a malformation rate of 92% in July). The 

density of larvae and juveniles decreased by 84-90%, causing serious damage to biodiversity. This 

accident has caused damage to biodiversity. In the assessment of ecological damage caused by oil spill 

accidents, there are significant difficulties in the professional determination of the compensation amount 

for ecological losses due to the multidimensional loss of ecosystem service value, including fishery 

resource loss, carbon sink function decline, and tourism value damage, and the lack of clear weight 

standards for different evaluation indicators in the Marine Environmental Protection Law. This type of 

illegal fact involving complex professional identification belongs to the special circumstances stipulated 

in the Administrative Penalty Law that require collective discussion and decision-making by the 

responsible persons of administrative organs. Although the specific amount of compensation for marine 

ecological losses and the assessment agreement for fishery losses in this case have not been made public, 

the administrative penalty must fully consider the long-term impact of the accident on marine fishery 

resources, the damage to the service functions of the marine ecosystem, and the actual cost of ecological 

restoration. As the determination of the amount of loss is directly related to the discretion of the fine 

amount, in order to ensure that the punishment range matches the severity of ecological damage and 

avoid an imbalance in discretion, administrative agencies should conduct collective discussions among 

responsible persons, comprehensively analyze professional evaluation reports, weigh the weights of 

various loss indicators, and ultimately determine a reasonable and fair punishment decision. This 

procedure can not only ensure the legality of administrative penalties, but also enhance the scientificity 

and credibility of law enforcement decisions. 

4.2.2 Disputes over the Application of Law 

Marine administrative law enforcement involves multiple laws and regulations, and in some complex 

cases, multiple laws may be violated simultaneously, leading to disputes in the application of the law. 

Taking ship oil pollution cases as an example, such cases may involve both the Marine Environmental 

Protection Law and the Fisheries Law. The Marine Environmental Protection Law mainly provides 

comprehensive regulations on the standards, monitoring, prevention, and control of ship oil pollution 

emissions from the perspective of overall marine environmental protection; The Fisheries Law focuses 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

98 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

on the protection of fishery resources and the maintenance of fishery production order, and also has 

corresponding punishment provisions for the damage caused to fishery resources by ship oil pollution. In 

practical law enforcement, when a ship experiences oil spill while sailing near the sea, it not only pollutes 

the marine ecological environment but also causes serious losses to the surrounding fisheries and 

aquaculture. At this point, law enforcement personnel need to carefully analyze whether the vessel’s 

navigation behavior complies with the provisions of the Marine Environmental Protection Law regarding 

the equipment, operation specifications, and emission standards for ship anti pollution. At the same time, 

they also need to consider whether the degree of damage caused by oil pollution to fishery resources 

meets the punishment standards stipulated in the Fisheries Law, as well as how to coordinate and apply 

the two laws. This requires law enforcement personnel to have solid legal knowledge and rich practical 

experience. Through collective discussions, they can fully discuss the legislative purposes, scope of 

application, and specific provisions of different legal provisions in order to accurately make judgments 

on legal application. 

4.2.3 Doubtful Evidence Chain 

When there is doubt about the evidence chain in maritime administrative penalty cases, that is, there is 

evidence contradiction or legal application logic break in the determination of key facts, this itself 

constitutes the core situation of “complex circumstances”. The complexity of such cases often stems 

from the temporal and spatial continuity of maritime use behavior and the particularity of professional 

technical judgment, which poses significant challenges to building a complete and consistent evidence 

system. For example, in a dispute over the right to use a certain sea area, the administrative agency failed 

to clearly identify the spatial boundary of the illegal behavior, and confused the illegal behavior in an 

independent area (such as the S7 area of the weighbridge management room) that was clearly located 

outside the boundary of the plaintiff's sea area use certificate with its reclamation behavior in a legal sea 

area, mistakenly applying the provisions on “unauthorized change of sea area use” instead of the 

provisions applicable to illegal occupation of the sea (Xiamen Maritime Court, Administrative Judgment 

No. (2019) Min 72 Xing Chu 22). This fundamental qualitative error in the illegal facts directly led to 

confusion of the punishment targets and inaccurate calculation of the fine base, ultimately being rejected 

by judicial review due to “unclear facts and insufficient main evidence”. Another typical case is another 

illegal occupation of sea areas, where the administrative agency found that the critical time point of 

“completion of construction in December 2021” for the project involved lacked sufficient evidence 

support, and this time point directly determined the calculation of the illegal occupation period and the 

determination of the fine amount. More prominently, in this case, the administrative agency will apply 

the one-time collection of sea use fees for non permeable structures after legally obtaining the right to use 

the sea area, and directly mechanically apply them to the calculation of fines for administrative penalties, 

reflecting a deviation from the understanding of the purpose of legal norms (Xiamen Maritime Court, 

Administrative Judgment No. (2023) Min 72 Xing Chu 43). Although the case underwent a collective 

discussion procedure, the discussion failed to effectively address core issues such as weak evidence 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

99 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

during the illegal period and misplaced legal application standards, resulting in the revocation of the 

punishment decision due to “unclear factual findings and incorrect application of the law”. Such cases 

fully demonstrate that when maritime administrative penalties face doubts about the evidence chain, such 

as contradictions between ownership certificates and on-site conditions, insufficient evidence during the 

illegal period, or poor connection between professional technical judgments and legal constitutive 

elements, the collective discussion of administrative agency leaders must not be superficial. It must 

substantially focus on the verification relationship between the temporal and spatial boundaries of illegal 

behavior and ownership certificates, the matching degree between professional technical identification 

and legal requirements, and whether the application of punishment standards accurately distinguishes the 

collection characteristics of sea use fees from the punitive purposes of administrative penalties. Only 

through this in-depth and substantive collective analysis can we systematically bridge the gap in the 

evidence chain and ensure that administrative penalties have a solid foundation of legitimacy in both 

factual determination and legal application. 

4.3 Social Impact Assessment Type 

When maritime administrative penalty cases trigger media attention or group effects, their social 

attention is high and their impact is wide, and they must be forcibly included in the scope of collective 

discussion. The outcome of such cases not only concerns the vital interests of the parties involved, but 

also has a significant impact on social stability and public interests. For example, illegal fishing cases 

involving more than 5 people or multiple fishing boats, due to the large number of fishing boats and the 

livelihood issues of many fishermen, are prone to trigger mass incidents. 

In terms of mass violations, the case of 10 electric fish gangs in the Taihu Lake Lake in Jiangsu Province 

in 2024 and the case of nine fishing boats dismantling Beidou in Fujian Province in 2023 form a double 

proof: the former needs to coordinate the law enforcement agencies in Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces 

through collective discussion, assess the irreversible damage of electric trawls to the Taihu Lake Lake 

biological chain, and finally impose a fine of 30000 yuan on 10 parties and confiscate all the tools of the 

crime; The latter posed a major navigation safety hazard due to the coordinated evasion of supervision by 

9 ships. After analysis and judgment, a fine of 754000 yuan was imposed, and a comprehensive use of 

“technology+law” methods was employed. The fishermen and fishing boats involved in such cases may 

come from different fishing villages and have been engaged in fishing operations during the fishing ban 

period for a long time. After the case was exposed, local fishermen were inevitably emotionally agitated, 

and some fishermen even expressed their demands through collective petitioning and other means. The 

relevant law enforcement departments should quickly include the case in the collective discussion 

procedure, and organize sufficient communication and negotiation among fishery experts, legal workers, 

grassroots government representatives, and fishermen representatives. In collective discussions, it is 

necessary to consider both strictly cracking down on illegal fishing activities in accordance with the law, 

protecting the long-term interests of fishery resources, and taking into account the actual living 

difficulties and reasonable demands of fishermen. Ultimately, a comprehensive set of punishment and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

100 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

assistance measures should be formulated. Punish illegal fishing vessels in accordance with the law, and 

provide assistance policies such as fishery breeding technology training and employment guidance for 

affected fishermen, effectively resolving social conflicts and maintaining social stability. 

In terms of media focus, taking the ecological environment damage incidents in nature reserves as an 

example, after such incidents are exposed by the media, their destructive behavior is highly likely to 

attract widespread public attention due to the core ecological functions of nature reserves, such as 

maintaining biodiversity and protecting endangered species. Through collective discussion, various 

factors such as ecological protection, social public opinion, and public interests can be comprehensively 

considered to ensure that punishment decisions are scientific and reasonable. The illegal fishing case in 

natural reserves investigated and dealt with by Zhanjiang City in 2023 is clear evidence: two ship owners, 

Cai and others, used nets smaller than the minimum mesh size in the core area of the protected area to fish 

in violation of the fishing ban regulations, directly damaging the habitat and ecological chain of 

pangolins. As a first-class protected animal in China, the habitat destruction of the pangolin is a major 

ecological event that will inevitably trigger public supervision. Law enforcement agencies should 

immediately initiate a collective discussion process, invite ecological experts to assess habitat damage, 

and listen to public opinions to balance ecological protection and livelihood demands. Taking into 

account the illegal circumstances, such as the use of prohibited online devices, private transportation of 

unlicensed personnel, and the feasibility of ecological restoration, a fair and reasonable administrative 

penalty will be ultimately imposed. This not only strictly fulfills the regulatory responsibilities of the 

Nature Reserve Regulations, but also responds to social concerns through the public announcement of 

law enforcement results, demonstrating a “zero tolerance” law enforcement stance towards ecologically 

sensitive areas, controlling public opinion risks, and dispelling public doubts. 

 

5. Conclusion 

This study clarifies the “special internal procedure” attribute of the collective discussion system in 

maritime administrative penalties, theoretically deepening the application of the administrative 

procedure dichotomy in the field of maritime law enforcement, and filling the gap in existing research on 

the characteristics of maritime areas; The three-dimensional refinement standard proposed in practice 

provides an operational path for solving the problem of ambiguous identification. Compared with 

existing research, this article breaks through the perspective of a single procedural approach and 

constructs a composite system based on the professionalism of the sea area. However, compared with the 

macro theories of scholars such as Jiang Ming’an, there is a lack of cross disciplinary comparisons. There 

are limitations in the research, such as the lack of in-depth exploration of the technical path of provincial 

discretion standards, and the improvement of judicial review and administrative procedure reception. 

Suggest promoting the special revision of discretionary benchmarks and establishing a quantitative 

model in the future; In the future, collaborative research on maritime and terrestrial procedures can be 

expanded to provide more systematic support for the unification of maritime rule of law. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

101 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Acknowledgments 

1) Research on the Important Discussion of General Secretary Xi Jinping on Building a Marine Power, 

Special Fund for Basic Research Funds for Undergraduate Universities in Liaoning Province 

(2024JBPTR001). 

2) In 2024, the research project of the Agroforestry Discipline Working Committee of the Chinese 

Association of Academic Degrees and Postgraduate Education (2024-NLZX-YB140) was “Research on 

the Innovation and Practice of the Cultivation Mode of Master of Laws with Sea related+Fishery 

related+Foreign related Characteristics under the Guidance of Xi Jinping's Thought of Rule of Law”. 

 

References 

Dalian Maritime Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2021) Liao 72 Xingchu 12. 

Guangdong Provincial High People’s Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2020) Yue Xing Zhong 

1770. 

Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region High People’s Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2018) 

Guixingzhong 1163. 

He, H. B. (2022). Administrative Litigation Law (p. 357). Beijing: Law Press. 

Jiang, L. H. (2014). Analysis of the Main Viewpoints of Japanese Administrative Process Theory. 

Journal of the National Prosecutor’s College, 2012(3). 

Jiang, M. A. (2023). Improving the rule of law in administrative procedures is the only way to build a 

rule of law government. Administrative Law Research, 2023(1), 13-17. 

Jiang, Y. J. (2014). Jiang Lan Analysis and Inspiration of Oil Spill Accident in Penglai 19-3 Oilfield 

[C]//Journal of Guangzhou Maritime University, Volume 22, 2014 (Total Issue 57) South China Sea 

Environmental Monitoring Center of the State Oceanic Administration; School of Environment and 

Energy, South China University of Technology, 2014:128-131. 

Lu, Z. F. (2018). Research on Internal Administrative Procedures and Their Rule of Law Construction. 

Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018(3), 106-112. 

Xiamen Maritime Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2019) Min 72 Xing Chu 22. 

Xiamen Maritime Court, Administrative Judgment No. (2023) Min 72 Xing Chu 43. 

Ye, B. F. (2022). The Development of Collective Discussion System from Organizational Law to 

Behavioral Law. Law, 2022(6), 31-42. 

Zhang, S. F. (2008). On the Position of Internal Procedures in Administrative Law Enforcement. Journal 

of Social Sciences, Jilin University, 2008(1), 38-44. 

 

 


