Author(s)

Chen Wang ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ Lanzhou University Law School, Lanzhou, Gansu, China

Corresponding Author

Chen Wang

ABSTRACT

The system for the disclosure of administrative punishment decisions originates from the "administrative law enforcement publicity system" within the three systems of administrative law enforcement. Its main purpose is to supervise the law enforcement activities of administrative organs. Based on this legislative purpose, it is inferred that administrative agencies would adopt a self-restrained disclosure standard to protect their credibility. However, empirical data analysis shows that this is not the case. In practice, the disclosure of administrative punishment decisions has gradually evolved from a tool for supervising public power to a means of imposing secondary punitive sanctions on individuals. This shift in purpose not only infringes on the basic rights of individuals but also leads to an expansion of public power. It is necessary to regulate the administrative disclosure procedure from a teleological perspective, ensuring that the implementation of the system aligns with its original legislative purpose.

KEYWORDS

Administrative punishment, open government information, procedural control, restriction of public power

CITE THIS PAPER

Chen Wang, Regulation of Public Administrative Punishment Decisions from a Teleological Perspective. Science of Law Journal (2024) Vol. 3: 102-110. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.23977/law.2024.030413.

REFERENCES

[1] Wang, K. (2018). On the Definition of Administrative Facts Behavior. Jurists, (4), 61.
[2] He, Y. (2020). Publishing Administrative Violations Information as Reputation Penalty: Logic Proof and Institutional Construction. Administrative Law Research, (6), 79.
[3] Zhu, M. (2021). "Notification and Criticism" as a Common Type of Administrative Penalty. Chinese Legal Science, (2), 153-158.
[4] Zhu, B. Q., & Chen, Z. H. (2015). The Balance between Informed Consent and Privacy Rights in the Disclosure of Administrative Penalty Information. Electronic Government, (4), 66-67.
[5] Xiong, Z. L. (2021). Why Administrative Penalty Decisions Do Not Need to Be Fully Disclosed?—A Legitimate Interpretation of Article 48 of the New Administrative Penalty Law. Journal of Suzhou University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), (6), 102.
[6] Zhang, Z. Y., & Bao, Y. J. (2011). Analysis of the Legal Attributes of Disclosing Illegal Facts. Journal of Shandong Police College, (6), 52.
[7] Ma, L. K. (2021). Application Paths for the Public Disclosure of Penalty Decisions. Democracy and Legal Times, 6(17), 6.
[8] Kong, X. W. (2021). The Function and Limit of Public Disclosure of Administrative Penalty Decisions. Chinese and Foreign Legal Science, (6), 1619-1637.
[9] Peng, D. (2024). Revisiting the Public Disclosure of Administrative Penalty Decisions: Nature, Logic, and Methods. Modern Law Science, (46), 48-63.
[10] Cai, J. R. (2023). The Normative Structure and Expansion of the Public Disclosure of Administrative Penalty Decisions. Administrative Law Research, (3), 17-29.
[11] Wang, X. X. (2021). The Public Disclosure and Limitation of Administrative Penalty Decisions. Chinese Judiciary, (8), 68-71.
[12] Weng, M. J. (2023). Discretion and Normative Path of Administrative Penalty Decision Disclosure Process. Financial Law Review, (2), 97-111.
[13] Xu, A. B. (2021). Interpretation of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China. Beijing: China Democratic and Legal Publishing House, 138.
[14] Beccaria, C. (2003). On Crimes and Punishments. Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House.
[15] Takahashi, A. (2019). The Position of Information Disclosure and Recall in the Administrative Action System and Its Legal Issues. In Y. Nozuru, M. Okada, T. Hitomi, & S. Ishizaki (Eds.), Modern Administration and Network Theory. Law Culture Society.
[16] He, Y. (2020). Publishing Administrative Violations Information as Reputation Penalty: Logic Proof and Institutional Construction. Administrative Law Research, (6), 78-89.
[17] Zhang, Z. Y. (2012). Disclosing Illegal Facts as Administrative Enforcement Measures. Jurists, (1), 52-62.
[18] Hu, H. G. (2008). On the Legal Definition of Public Interest — From the Path of Element Interpretation. Chinese Legal Science, (4), 56-67.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Journal of Language Testing & Assessment
  
  
• Information and Knowledge Management
  
  
• Military and Armament Science
  
  
• Media and Communication Research
  
  
• Journal of Human Movement Science
  
  
• Art and Performance Letters
  
  
• Lecture Notes on History
  
  
• Lecture Notes on Language and Literature
  
  
• Philosophy Journal
  
  
• Journal of Political Science Research
  
  
• Journal of Sociology and Ethnology
  
  
• Advances in Broadcasting