党政领导干部和非领导职务的公职人员以直播带货、拍摄宣传视频等方式在服务型政府建设、乡村振兴、精准扶贫、疫情防控等领域发挥重要作用,成为备受网民关注的"网红".政府职能转变下的"互联网+政务服务"改革是"网红"公职人员现象发生的根本原因,新冠疫情期间经济复苏探索是该现象"井喷式"出现的社会因素,其表现类型可归纳为网络意见领袖型、政务宣传型、直播带货型三类.目前,"网红"公职人员面临舆论风险、廉洁风险以及法律风险,欲使公职人员利用互联网开展新型政务服务有效规避风险、发挥长效作用,应该做到:坚持政治引领,化解舆论风险;协同多元监督,筑牢廉洁防线;贯彻依法治理,防范法律风险.

The standard of proof is the evaluation scale for determining the facts of a case, and its reasonable setting has an important impact on the smooth conduct of the litigation process and the realization of the litigation function. Under the background of the reform of the supervision system, the standard of proof for discipline inspection and supervision cases has its own unique historical background and unique properties. The construction of the standard of the proof system for discipline inspection and supervision cases should focus on legal values, diversity and flexibility, and adhere to principles of diversity, multi-stage, consistency, and the combination of subjective and objective factors, to determine the should-be choice of the standard of proof for discipline inspection and supervision cases from the procedural point of view and the final characterization of the case, so as to form a diversified and unified standard of the proof system.

农村集体经济组织成员资格的认定直接涉及农民的切身权益,与国家政策密切相关.如何在尊重农村集体经济组织自治属性的前提下对其成员资格认定给予相应指导,是一个值得重视的问题.目前我国各地对成员的认定标准不一,纠纷难免.以村委会公私身份混同为核心的现状使得成员认定基本以形式的户籍为标准,导致对纠纷的救济道阻且长.明确区分公私属性,以国家法律的形式规定原则性要求,由各地因地制宜,结合户籍和实质权利义务的综合性标准认定成员身份,再通过诉讼和乡镇人民政府(街道办事处)与县级以上农业农村部门的监督作为程序保障,是定分止争的有效方案.

我国行政处罚的归责原则有着不同的理论依据及学说,行政违法的构成要件没有具体明确的法律规定,主观要件的研究也仅仅停留在理论层面.但世界上绝大多数国家的法律规定及实际操作中均将行为人主观要件作为处罚的必要条件.理论上我国行政处罚归责应以主观过错责任为原则,但实践中对于主观过错的判断并没有统一的标准,因此应当完善《行政处罚法》,在总则部分确立行政违法的构成要件和行政处罚的归责原则,明确将主观过错作为行政违法的构成要件,并确立以过错责任为基础,以过错推定为补充的归责原则,处罚应与行为人主观恶性大小成正比例,没有过错的行为不应当处罚,保证行政处罚法律效果与社会效果有机统一,确保当事人的合法权益,体现处罚的公平公正原则.

内容提要2015年之前我国实行的立案审查制度使"立案难"长期困扰着当事人,在一定程度上损害了司法的形象.立案登记制改革应运而生,两年多的实践成效显著.但是案件数量和法院承载能力的矛盾,法院和社会对立案登记制理解的差异,保障诉权和治理滥用诉权的冲突等问题也逐渐凸显,为此,需要处理好立案登记制的必要性与司法有限理念之间的关系、司法解决纠纷与多元化解纠纷之间的关系、诉权保障与防止滥诉之间的关系,以及案件数量与法院承载能力之间的关系.

“民赔官”是指公民在损坏政府直接管理的公共设施时依法向国家承担赔偿责任的制度，这是一种大量存在但又不太引人注目的赔偿方式。“民赔官”的本质应当是一种特殊的民事赔偿制度，由于政府的追偿通常伴随着行政处罚，出于效率和经济原则考虑，赔偿程序上应当采用行政命令的方式，将赔偿金与罚款一并收缴，如果发生争议，应当采用行政复议或行政诉讼的救济途径。

The specialists in the evidence law have always confined the visual field of study to the system of evidence in litigation,but ignored the study of the system of administrative evidence.However,the administrative evidence is an important constituent part of evidence,which is related to the quality to administer by law.As the value orientation of the administrative activities is different from the litigious activities,there is diversity of the theoretical bases between the system of administrative evidence and that of the litigation evidence.There are independent rules regarding the core systems such as proof burden,proof standards,check-up and recognizance.

我国行政立法工作重心已经逐步由过去的"数量型立法"转向"质量型立法",从强调立法的制定转向强调立法的评估、修改与废止,在此过程中,对行政立法进行评估可以有效提高行政立法质量。当前,我国尚未形成系统、完善的行政立法评估制度;行政立法评估主体单一;评估周期缺乏常态化,对象选取存在随意性;评估内容缺乏标准。因而,我国应以法律形式确立统一的行政立法评估制度;建立多元化的评估主体模式;建立行政立法评估的期限常态化和对象选择标准化;健全行政立法评估体系;建立评估结果与行政立法的改和度的衔接制度,以完善我国行政立法评估制度。

China's petition system germinated in the mass route of CPC in the early days of the PRC,which beard the political functions to tie closely with the masses,opposite against the bureaucracy,and consolidate the new regime.Today it has evolved into an important system of dispute solution as well as the relief of rights and interests.The National People's Congress and the judiciary must be reformed along the direction of the rule of law,and their political position should be improved,to fully exert their role as the main channel to express interest demands and defuse social conflicts.Then gradually compress the space of petition,until it becomes a supplement to formal system.

公众参与行政决策是实现公民监督政府的宪法权利、促进政府由统治转变为治理的重要途径,是人民当家作主的实质所在.近年来,随着行政公开化的推动,我国在公众参与行政决策方面进行了有益的探索,公众参与行政决策取得了一定的进步.但是,目前我国行政决策的公众参与还存在许多问题:参与的主体不明确、参与的决策动议权缺失、参与的范围不够明确、参与的方式较为单一、公众提出的意见得不到充分尊重等,表明公众参与行政决策亟待法治化.因此,要检视我国行政决策公众参与的得失,尽快构建公众参与行政决策的机制,这是我国当前民主法治建设的重要一环.

"钓鱼"执法事件曝光后,社会舆论和法学界一致认为其违法,但是没有人能指出它究竟违反了哪个法.事实上,目前就找不到这样的法律依据,这反映出我国目前还缺乏系统的行政证据制度,实践中行政机关的做法是照搬行政诉讼法及其司法解释中的证据规则.但是,把诉讼证据规则简单地移植到行政程序中,无论是在理论上,还是在行政实践中都会产生冲突,因此,应当由<行政程序法>规定符合行政行为特点的行政证据制度.

<正>我国的廉政勤政建设任重而道远,监察机关在其中应当发挥重要作用。目前,我国对行政权的监督有多种形式,其中,行政监察是对行政权不良行使进行内部控制的一种监督制度。《行政监察法》第二条的规定:"监察机关是人民政府行使监察职能的机关,依照本法对国家行政机关、国家公务员以及国家行政机关任命的

西安市莲湖区城管执法局在全国首创"标准化执法",实现了被百姓认为的从"暴力型、随意型执法模式"到"文明化、规范化、法制化执法模式"的转变。

今年是《行政诉讼法》颁布实施20周年。《行政诉讼法》和相关配套性法律法规的颁布实施20年来,极大地推动了我国行政法治事业的发展,以及作为社会主义法治理念重要组成部分的依法行政理念的确立,极大地提高了中国的法治水平。公民依据《行政诉讼法》,通过行政诉讼制度可以实现自身权利的救济和保障;司法机关可以藉此监督或维护国家行政机关依法行使职权,落实和实现宪法权威。公民的自由、尊严和利益通过该部法律得到了尊重和维护,这一切,同《行政诉讼法》的观念影响和实践需求皆有关联。值此部法律实施20周年之际,本刊编发一组文章以示纪念,内容涵及《行政诉讼法》的历史贡献、行政诉讼与行政复议制度的关联、行政公诉制度、行政诉讼对党组织的监督、完善被告举证规则和维持判决的妥当性等诸多前沿话题。

检察机关对行政执法活动的监督是法律监督的应有之义,对行政机关的执法行为进行专业的监督是我国历来的传统,行政执法行为需要强有力的监督介入,检察机关有能力去进行监督,由其行使行政执法监督权是科学合理的。本文指出应通过司法体制改革深化,使检察机关对行政机关的执法活动从主体、程序、具体的执法过程等方面进行监督,以规范行政机关的活动。

行政诉讼审查标准是人民法院针对被诉的行政行为进行审查判断并作出裁判时所应遵循的标准,是人民法院裁判具体行政行为合法性和合理性所依据的尺度。我国现行的行政诉讼审查标准存在明显的缺陷:不分问题的性质,都采取了统一的严格的标准;以合法性审查为基本原则,以合理性审查为例外;程序审查中仅以法定程序为准,不考虑非法定程序。随着行政机关被赋予更广泛的行政管理权,这种审查模式越来越不适应我国依法治国的实践与理念。因此,应当重构我国行政诉讼审查的标准,即区分事实问题与法律问题建立灵活适当的审查标准,确立合理性审查标准,全面引入正当法律程序标准。

In theoretic world,the researches of burden of proof are confined to field of litigation.In reality,the burden of proof of administrative acts is a very important issue.There are different burdens of proof related to different administrative acts which should be studied respectively.There is no burden of proof in administrative legislation.In administrative acts based on legal duties,the burden of proof falls upon subject of administrative acts.In administrative acts based on applications,the burden of proof falls upon both applicant and subject of administrative acts.In administrative judicial acts to resolve administrative disputes,the burden of persuasion falls on party against whom application is filed and burden of presentation of evidence falls on applicant.And in administrative resolution of civil disputes,there is rule of the proof lies upon him who affirms.

There does not exist a complete system of administrative evidence in China at present.In administrative practice,the administrative organs have to apply the rules of evidence in Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial interpretation.The rules of evidence in litigation are simply transplanted into the administrative procedure for the efficiency of administrative activities,which led to a lot of conflicts both in theory and in practice.Therefore,the Administrative Procedure Act need to be enacted to provide the rules of administrative evidence,once the rule system is established,judges should review administrative actions according to this act,the regulations referring to administrative evidence in Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial interpretation will come to the end.

行政裁决的产生是现代行政权扩张的结果,作为多元化解决社会纠纷的方式,它实质上也是诉讼解决纠纷局限性的外化,这一制度在构建和谐社会中作用重大。但是,我国现有的行政裁决还存在种种问题,应当通过制定《行政程序法》等措施完善我国的行政裁决制度。

依法行政原则产生于资产阶级民主国家,其本意是限制行政权的滥用.在自由竞争资本主义阶段,由于行政行为以不利行为为主,依法行政原则以形式法治为理念,要求行政行为严格以制定法为依据.福利国家出现后,行政自由裁量权空前扩张,行政行为转变为以授益行为为主,要求依法行政原则以实质法治为理念,符合法的公平正义价值.行政奖励作为一种授益行为,同样应当追求实质法治,即以公平合理作为奖励的合法性标准,而不应当拘泥于制定法的明文规定.