The Mechanism, Practice Patterns, and Improvement Pathways of Administrative Self-Restraint in the Administrative-Penal Positive Articulation Mechanism

Authors

  • Wei Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/1n8ksa82

Keywords:

Administrative-Penal Positive Articulation, Administrative Self-Restraint, Administrative Supervision, Substituting Administrative Penalties for Criminal Punishments

Abstract

Despite long-term policy promotion of administrative-penal positive articulation in China, persistent issues like substituting administrative penalties for criminal punishments and failure to transfer cases remain, highlighting the insufficiency of existing external control mechanisms. Administrative self-restraint, as an endogenous control model where administrative entities constrain themselves, acts on articulation through three dimensions: organizationally, via horizontal and vertical decentralization of power to clarify responsibilities; internally, through supervision covering the entire process of procedures, information, and evidence; and normatively, by using checklist-based, directive, and procedural internal rules to narrow discretionary space. In practice, while it enhances articulation efficiency, evidence transfer success rates, and standardization, problems such as insufficient self-restraint motivation, limited supervision effectiveness, and lagging internal rules persist. To address these, optimizing organizational structures, building a synergistic mechanism between administrative self-restraint and external supervision, and dynamically optimizing internal rules are necessary to perfect administrative-penal positive articulation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Wang Zhaowu. The Relativity of Illegal Judgment from the Perspective of the Unity of Legal Order[J]. Peking University Journal of Legal Studies, 2015, 27(01): 170-197.

[2] Zhang Jie. An Analysis on the Optimization of the Path for Decriminalization of Minor Crimes from the Perspective of Administrative-Criminal Connection[J]. Legal Forum, 2024, 39(02): 29-38.

[3] Lian Yuqiang. A Study on the Boundary of Administrative Law Enforcement in Administrative-Criminal Connection[J]. China Legal Science, 2016, (02): 238-257.

[4] Wu Xiaowen. The Basic Issues of the Administrative-Criminal Connection Mechanism[J]. Peking University Journal of Legal Studies, 2023, 35(03): 803-822.

[5] Yu Lishen. The Theory of Administrative Self-Restraint in Modern Administrative Law: From the Perspective of Internal Administrative Law[J]. Contemporary Law Review, 2009, 23(06): 3-16.

[6] Cui Zhuolan, Yu Lishen. Administrative Self-Restraint and the Development of China's Administrative Rule of Law[J]. Chinese Journal of Law, 2010, 32(01): 35-47.

[7] Cui Zhuolan. A Re-exploration of the Theory of Administrative Self-Restraint[J]. Contemporary Law Review, 2014, 28(01): 3-11.

[8] Cui Zhuolan, Liu Fuyuan. Administrative Self-Restraint: Exploring the Expansion of the Theoretical Vision of Administrative Law[J]. Law and Social Development, 2008, (03): 98-107.

Downloads

Published

29-08-2025

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Li, W. (2025). The Mechanism, Practice Patterns, and Improvement Pathways of Administrative Self-Restraint in the Administrative-Penal Positive Articulation Mechanism. Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 12(2), 89-92. https://doi.org/10.54097/1n8ksa82