Procedure Standard and Administrative Investigation
—Realization of the Self-Discipline Principle


How to effectively protect the interests and rights of individuals and how to even realize a higher-level goal, individual justice and creative property are disturbing problems in administrative investigation. However, the complexity of the problem is increased because it includes arbitrary investigation and compulsory investigation. The specialness of the problem can be discovered through the clarity of administrative investigations on the attribution of concrete administrative acts. There is another effective method, namely the procedure standard reflecting the self-discipline principle except the mainstream method of right-control (i.e. judicial review). It is a combination of self-discipline with right-control, and may be one of the methods keeping pace with judicial review to realize the above-mentioned goal.

Share and Cite:

Yang, Y. (2013) Procedure Standard and Administrative Investigation
—Realization of the Self-Discipline Principle. Open Journal of Political Science, 3, 113-115. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2013.34016.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Fang, S. (1996). Discussion on the specific administrative acts (p. 144). Wuhan: Wuhan University Press.
[2] Hartmut, M. (2000). General expositions of administrative law (p. 466). Beijing: Law Press China.
[3] Karlllewellyn (1960). The common law tradition: Findings of fact and applicable discretionary factors of law in the judicial process.
[4] Richard, B. S. (2002). The reconstruction of the administrative law of the United States (p. 2). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[5] Shiono, H. (1999a). Administrative Law (pp. 63-67). Beijing: Law Press China.
[6] Shiono, H. (1999b). Administrative Law I (2nd ed.), Yuhikaku.
[7] Liu, W. J. (2004). Discussion on administrative forced inspection. Journal of National Prosecutors College, 1, 16-25.
[8] Wang, X. X. (2002). Free discretion and administrative justice— Reading the discretionary justice of Davis. Peking University Law Journal, 1, 11-22.
[9] Yang, H. (2000). Discussion on administrative investigation. Administrative Law Review, 2, 6-9.
[10] Ye, B. F. (2005). Classification of administrative action: Notion reconstruction or thoroughly overhauling. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 2, 170-172.
[11] Zhou, Y. Y. (2006). Administrative investigation of action process— Investigation in a new research paradigm. Studies in Law and Business, 1, 129-136.
[12] Zhu, M. (2006). Discretionary standards system of “Japanese Administrative Procedure Law”—As the internal composition of procedural legitimacy security device. Journal of the East China University of Politics & Law, 1, 73-79.
[13] Zhang, J. S. (2001). Discussion on the principle of administrative openness. Studies in Law and Business, 5, 62-65.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.