本稿は馮正虎著『公民の財産権と人身権を保護する行政救済の経路に関する研究と事例』の序文であり、中国公民が財産権と人身権を保護する際に直面する「行政の不作為、救済の道がない」という現実的困難に体系的に応答している。著者は新たに改正された『行政再審査法』を中核とし、『信訪工作条例』および『行政訴訟法』と組み合わせ、「職務履行申請、行政再審査、行政訴訟、強制執行と責任追及」という完全な救済の閉ループを提唱し、長年にわたり相互に断絶していた信訪・再審査・訴訟メカニズムの連携を図ることを目的としている。本稿は典型的な事例、法的分析、および人間と機械の協働という研究手法を通じて、行政救済の制度的論理を再構築するだけでなく、一般市民に対して実行可能かつ説明責任のある合理的な権利保護の道筋を提供し、市民の権利を「紙の上」から「現実」へと導くことを目指している。

現代中国において、公民の財産権と人身権を保護することは、憲法が確認した根本原則であると同時に、法治政府を構築し社会の長期的な安定を実現するための現実的基盤でもある。近年、依法行政と司法制度改革の不断の深化に伴い、権利救済に関する法律法規は絶えず整備されてきた。『中華人民共和国信訪工作条例』『中華人民共和国行政復議法』『中華人民共和国行政訴訟法』が相次いで改正され、公民に行政から司法に至る多層的な救済ルートが提供されている。

しかし、具体的な実践においては、長年にわたり存在し、極めて緊張感のある現実的な問題が依然として効果的に解決されていない。すなわち、行政機関が市民の「財産権と人身権を保護する職責の履行を求める」申請に対して長期にわたり回答を拒否したり、責任を押し付けたり遅延させたりする場合、市民はどのように自らの権利を守ればよいのか？苦情処理部門、行政再審査機関、人民法院の間で、いったいどのように連携し、役割分担すべきなのか？「法定職責の不履行」という不作為行為は、果たして再審査や訴訟の受理範囲に入るのか？こうした一見技術的な手続き問題の背後には、市民の権利が紙面から現実へと移行できるか否かの制度的成否が映し出されている。

本書に収録された『中国公民の財産権と人身権を保護する行政救済経路の研究』及び関連する典型事例と評論は、まさにこの現実的ジレンマに対する体系的な回答である。著者は新たに改正された『行政再審査法』を中核とし、『信訪工作条例』と『行政訴訟法』を両翼として、国内で初めて統一的な枠組みでこれら三つの法規を「連結」し、「立体化」した構造を形成。さらに「職責履行申請―行政再審査 ―行政訴訟―強制執行と責任追及」という完全な救済の閉ループを構築し、制度レベルで長年分断されてきた「信訪―再審査―訴訟」の連鎖を貫通させることを目的としている。

本書は一方で法理レベルでの体系再構築に着目している。長年にわたり、信訪、再審査、訴訟は実践においてしばしば三つの並行する、あるいは相互に代替し得る「分岐点」として扱われてきた。一部の地方機関は信訪を「終着駅」と位置付け、「調整中」「関係部門へ転送済み」といった対応で市民の権利主張をかわしてきた。一方、再審査機関や裁判所は、市民の職務履行請求を「信訪事項」や「内部監督行為」と習慣的に規定し、「受理範囲外」を理由に受理を拒否してきた。結果として、本来は法定手続きで解決すべき権利紛争が信訪ルートに押し寄せ、行政機関と司法機関は救済責任を押し付け合い、市民は長引く手続きの空転の中で「訴える先もなく、申し立てる成果もない」という苦境に陥っている。

こうした制度の歪みに対し、本書は三つの法規の機能分担と手続きの連携を明確に定義している：信訪工作条例は意見表明と分流の入口を提供するものの、法定救済に代わるものではない； 行政再審査法は行政誤謬の是正と権利救済の主たる経路であり、特に「法定職責の不履行」を「再審査前置」原則として確立することで、大量の不作為行為を厳格な監督下に組み入れた。行政訴訟法は最終的な司法防衛線を構成し、合法性審査と強制執行を通じて行政権力が法治の軌道上を運行することを確保する。三者は「三者択一」ではなく、論理的に進展し責任が閉環する有機的全体を成す。

他方、本書は生きた複雑な中国現地事例に根差している。上海莘荘と浦東における二件の「土地収用農民による政府職責履行請求事件」の全過程を整理することで、抽象的な制度設計を具体化・可視化した。両事件の共通背景は、1990年代の土地収用・立ち退き問題が長期未解決となり、土地収用農民の宅地使用権と家屋補償に関する紛争が実質的な処理を遅延させた点にある。度重なる陳情や調整が実を結ばなかった後、彼らは新「行政再審査法」第11条第（11）項及び第23条の規定に基づき、管轄権を有する行政機関に「財産権保護職責履行申請書」を提出した。しかし「長期にわたり回答がない」という現実を前に、彼らは相次いで行政再審査と行政訴訟の手続きを開始した。

これらの事例は、「陳情依存」から「法に基づく権利保護」への模索の道筋を鮮明に示している。当事者はもはや「関心」や「調整」に満足せず、「法定職責の履行」を核心的な要求としている。彼らはEMS郵送証明書、受理番号、配達受領証などの客観的証拠を通じて、行政機関の不作為を「潜在的」から「顕在的」なものへと転換し、「再審査前置」メカニズムを活用して事件を司法審査手続きに導いた。このプロセスは新法施行後の公民権保障の好例となるはずだったが、個別の事例では再審査や訴訟段階で「信訪関連」「内部監督に属する」「受理範囲外」といった旧来の論理による妨害が相次ぎ、新『行政再審査法』の執行過程における観念的障壁と制度的慣性の問題を浮き彫りにした。

本書は個別の挫折事例の記述に留まらず、複数の法律意見書とAI法律分析を通じて、関連する再審査決定及び裁判所判決の法律適用と事実認定を包括的に分析している。時間法の適用、受理範囲の定義から、「内部監督」と「合法性審査」の境界線、 「回答しない不作為」が再審査・訴訟手続きの対象となり得るか、不履行案件における再審査前置の厳格な要件に至るまで、緻密かつ論理的な分析を展開している。これは具体的な事件当事者への責任ある対応であると同時に、行政機関と司法機関が新法を正確に理解し貫徹するための制度的提言でもある。

特に注目すべきは、本書が「訪民（行政機関に陳情する市民）」グループに特別な関心を寄せ、人間的な配慮を示している点である。「十年もの間、機関の周りをぐるぐる回り続ける」当事者たちは、行政救済メカニズムの機能不全を直接体感する者であり、法的手続きを通じて自らの権益を守る必要性が最も高い弱者集団である。本書は複雑な制度条文を、一般人が理解・操作可能な「三段階プロセス図」と「権利ツールキット」に変換し、感情的な繰り返し陳情から、法定期限と書面証拠に基づく理性的な権利保護へと導く。規範的な『法定職責履行申請書』は、当事者が自らの権利を宣言するだけでなく、強制力を伴う法的手続きを開始する「スイッチ」でもある。

この意味で、本書は単なる行政法学の研究成果ではなく、現実に向けた行動指針である。典型的な事例における行政の不作為、司法の不作為、そして行政と司法の相互責任回避を深く分析し、実践可能な制度修復案を提示している。

行政段階では、陳情と職責履行申請の境界を明確化し、「陳情化認定を禁ずる」受理原則を確立し、期限警告と書面回答の義務を規定することで、遅延の余地を圧縮する。

再審査段階では、「再審査前置」と「期限付き履行決定」を軸に、上級機関が下級機関の不作為行為に対し実質的な審査と是正を行うよう促す。

司法段階では、強制執行、日割り罰金、信用懲戒、刑事責任移送などの強制措置を通じて、不作為行為に対する完全な責任体系を形成する。

このように入口から出口まで責任追及が可能な手続き設計により、従来の「提言型」権利保障から「説明責任型」の硬直的メカニズムへの進化が期待される。

本書の執筆と出版は、人工知能技術と人間の法律専門家との深い協力なしには実現しなかった。AI正審案チームは、大規模モデルの計算能力を活用し、大量の法規・判例・裁判文書を構造化分析することで、制度運用における共通課題と重要ポイントを抽出。同時に著者は長年の実務経験と法治精神に基づき、技術が生成した分析結果を選別・修正・価値判断し、論理的厳密性を確保しつつ当事者の具体的状況への理解と配慮を損なわないようにした。この「人と機械の協働」という作業方式自体が、将来の司法・行政意思決定モデルに対する有益な探求である。

本書が、権利保護の困難に直面する一般市民に明確な解決策を示すだけでなく、各級行政機関・苦情処理部門・再審査機関・人民法院に対し、職務範囲の境界・手続きの連携・責任追及などの課題解決に参照可能な制度モデルを提供することを願う。さらに、学界・実務界・社会一般において「権利をいかにして真に実現させるか」という真剣な議論を喚起することを強く願う。

新「行政再審査法」は、市民の財産権と人身権を保護するため、より完備された制度的ツールを提供している。本書の使命は、人々がこれらのツールを正しく使用する方法を学び、関連機関がこれらの制度を真に尊重し実施するよう促すことで、法に基づく行政の推進、再審査の基盤強化、司法の力強さを支える「制度のアンカー」となり、中国が全面的な法治国家を目指す道程に明確かつ確固たる足跡を残すことにある。

馮正虎

2025年12月5日 上海にて

This preface to Feng Zhenghu’s Research and Case Studies on Administrative Remedies for Protecting Citizens’ Property and Personal Rights systematically addresses the practical dilemma faced by Chinese citizens: “administrative inaction and lack of recourse” when safeguarding their property and personal rights. Centered on the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law and integrated with the Regulations on Petitioning Work and the Administrative Litigation Law, the author proposes a comprehensive closed-loop remedy system encompassing “duty fulfillment applications, administrative reconsideration, administrative litigation, compulsory enforcement, and accountability.” This aims to bridge the long-standing disconnect between petitioning, reconsideration, and litigation mechanisms. Through case studies, legal analysis, and human-machine collaborative research, this paper not only reconstructs the institutional logic of administrative remedies but also provides ordinary citizens with an actionable and accountable rational path for rights protection. It seeks to advance citizens’ rights from “paper” to “reality.”

In contemporary China, protecting citizens’ property rights and personal rights is both a fundamental principle enshrined in the Constitution and the practical foundation for building a law-based government and achieving lasting social stability. In recent years, with the deepening of law-based administration and judicial system reforms, laws and regulations concerning rights remedies have been continuously improved. The Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Petition Work, the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China have been successively revised, providing citizens with multi-tiered remedies from administrative to judicial levels.

However, a persistent and highly contentious practical issue remains unresolved: When administrative agencies fail to respond to citizens’ requests to “fulfill duties protecting property and personal rights” or engage in prolonged evasion and delay, how should citizens safeguard their rights? How should petition departments, administrative reconsideration bodies, and people’s courts coordinate and divide responsibilities? Can the inaction of “failing to perform statutory duties” fall within the scope of cases accepted for reconsideration and litigation? Behind these seemingly technical procedural questions lies the institutional success or failure of whether citizens’ rights can move from paper to reality.

The collection in this book, Research on Administrative Remedies for Protecting the Property and Personal Rights of Chinese Citizens, along with related typical cases and commentary, constitutes a systematic response to this practical dilemma. Centered on the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law, with the Regulations on Handling Public Petitions and the Administrative Litigation Law as its two wings, the author pioneers a unified domestic framework that “links” these three statutes into a “three-dimensional” structure. This framework proposes a complete relief cycle of “duty fulfillment application—administrative reconsideration —Administrative Litigation—Enforcement and Accountability“ to establish a complete remedial loop. This aims to institutionally bridge the long-standing disconnect between the ”petitioning—review—litigation“ chain.

The book focuses on systemic reconstruction at the legal theory level. Historically, petitioning, review, and litigation have often been treated in practice as three parallel or even mutually substitutable ”forks in the road.” Some local authorities treat petitions as the “final stop,” dismissing citizens’ rights claims with responses like “under coordination” or “forwarded to relevant departments.” Certain reconsideration bodies and courts habitually categorize citizens’ requests for duty fulfillment as “petition matters” or “internal oversight actions,” refusing to accept them on grounds of “falling outside their jurisdiction.” The result is that the petitioning channel bears the burden of resolving rights disputes that should be addressed through statutory procedures. Administrative and judicial bodies shirk their remedial responsibilities, while citizens become trapped in a prolonged procedural loop, facing a dilemma of “no avenue for appeal, no resolution for claims.”

Addressing this systemic misalignment, this book clearly delineates the functional divisions and procedural connections among the three laws: The Petitioning Work Regulations provide an entry point for expression and case distribution but cannot substitute for statutory remedies; The Administrative Reconsideration Law serves as the primary channel for administrative error correction and rights redress, particularly by establishing the “pre-reconsideration” principle of “failure to perform statutory duties,” thereby subjecting a vast array of inaction to rigid oversight. The Administrative Litigation Law constitutes the final judicial defense, ensuring administrative power operates within the rule of law through legality review and compulsory enforcement. These three are not mutually exclusive options but form a logically progressive, closed-loop system of responsibility.

On the other hand, this book is grounded in vivid and complex domestic Chinese cases. By comprehensively examining two cases—Shanghai Xinzhuang and Pudong—where displaced farmers petitioned the government to fulfill its duties, it concretizes and visualizes abstract institutional designs. Both cases share a common background: land expropriation and demolition issues from the 1990s remained unresolved for years, leading to prolonged disputes over the displaced farmers’ residential land use rights and housing compensation. After repeated petitions and mediations yielded no results, they legally submitted “Applications for Performance of Duties to Protect Property Rights” to the competent administrative authorities under Article 11(11) and Article 23 of the new Administrative Reconsideration Law. Confronted with the reality of “prolonged non-response,” they subsequently initiated administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation procedures.

These cases clearly illustrate a path of exploration from “reliance on petitions” to “lawful rights protection”: the parties no longer content themselves with ‘concern’ and “coordination,” but instead make “fulfillment of statutory duties” their core demand. Through objective evidence such as EMS mailing receipts, case acceptance numbers, and delivery confirmations, they transformed the administrative agency’s inaction from “implicit” to “explicit.” Leveraging the “administrative reconsideration prerequisite” mechanism, they successfully introduced the cases into judicial review procedures. This process should have served as a vivid example of safeguarding citizens’ rights under the new law. Yet, individual cases encountered repeated obstacles at the reconsideration and litigation stages—such as being dismissed as “petition-related,” “falling under internal oversight,” or “outside the scope of acceptance.” This reflects the conceptual barriers and institutional inertia confronting the implementation of the new Administrative Reconsideration Law.

This book goes beyond documenting individual setbacks. Through multiple legal opinions and AI-driven legal analysis, it provides a comprehensive examination of the legal application and factual determinations in relevant reconsideration decisions and court rulings. It meticulously analyzes issues ranging from the application of temporal law and the definition of jurisdictional scope to the boundaries between “internal oversight” and “legality review”; from whether “failure to respond” constitutes inaction subject to reconsideration and litigation, to the mandatory requirement of prior reconsideration in non-performance cases—all receive meticulous and well-reasoned scrutiny. This serves not only as a responsible response to the parties involved in specific cases but also as an institutional reminder to administrative and judicial bodies to accurately understand and implement the new law.

Of particular note is the book’s special attention and humanitarian concern for the “petitioners” group. Those petitioners who “have been circling government offices for a decade without respite” are the direct victims of a failing administrative redress mechanism and the most vulnerable group in need of legal procedures to protect their rights. The book translates complex institutional provisions into accessible “three-step” flowcharts and “rights toolkits” that ordinary people can understand and implement, guiding them from emotional, repetitive petitioning toward rational rights protection grounded in statutory time limits and written evidence. A properly drafted “Application for Performance of Statutory Duties” serves not only as a declaration of one’s rights but also as the “trigger” to initiate legally binding procedures.

In this sense, this book is not merely an academic contribution to administrative law but a practical guide for real-world action. Through in-depth analysis of typical cases involving administrative inaction, judicial inaction, and mutual buck-passing between administrative and judicial bodies, it proposes a set of actionable institutional repair solutions.

At the administrative stage, it reduces room for delay by clarifying the boundary between petitions and duty fulfillment applications, establishing the principle of “no characterization as petitioning,” and mandating time-limit warnings and written responses.

At the reconsideration stage, it leverages “pre-reconsideration” and “time-bound fulfillment decisions” to compel higher-level authorities to conduct substantive reviews and correct inaction by lower-level agencies.

At the judicial stage, a comprehensive accountability framework for inaction is established through enforcement measures including compulsory execution, daily fines, credit sanctions, and referral for criminal liability.

This end-to-end accountability-driven procedural design aims to elevate past “initiative-based” rights protection to a “rigid, accountable mechanism.”

The writing and publication of this book rely on deep collaboration between artificial intelligence technology and human legal experts. The AI Case Review Team leveraged the computational power of large models to conduct structured analysis of vast volumes of regulations, precedents, and judicial documents, thereby identifying common issues and critical junctures in system operation. Concurrently, the authors, drawing on years of practical experience and a commitment to the rule of law, screened, calibrated, and evaluated the value of technology-generated analyses. This ensured rigorous logic while maintaining empathy for the specific circumstances of those involved. This “human-machine collaboration” approach itself represents a valuable exploration of future judicial and administrative decision-making models.

We hope this collection not only provides ordinary citizens long trapped in rights protection dilemmas with a clear path forward, but also offers administrative agencies, petition departments, reconsideration bodies, and people’s courts at all levels a reference framework for institutional design. This framework can assist them in resolving issues concerning jurisdictional boundaries, procedural coordination, and accountability. We further hope it will spark serious discussions among academia, practitioners, and the public on “how to ensure rights are truly realized.”

The new Administrative Reconsideration Law provides more comprehensive institutional tools for protecting citizens’ property and personal rights. The mission of this book is to help people learn how to properly use these tools and to push relevant institutions to genuinely respect and implement these systems. It aims to become an “institutional anchor” for promoting law-based administration, strengthening the foundation of reconsideration, and ensuring effective judicial action, leaving a clear and solid footnote on China’s path toward comprehensive rule of law.

Feng Zhenghu

December 5, 2025, in Shanghai

1. The Fundamental Status of the Constitution and the Absence of the Spirit of the Rule of Law

In “Constitutional Protection and Rights Defense: The Ideology Practiced by Feng Zhenghu,” Feng Zhenghu pointed out that the constitution is the fundamental law of the state and the cornerstone of human rights protection. However, in China’s current reality, while legal systems are not lacking, what is truly missing is the spirit of the rule of law. The core of the rule of law lies in the concept and culture that “all are equal before the law” and “all must obey the law.”The absence of this spirit leads to laws being distorted by power in practice, leaving citizens’ legitimate rights unprotected.

Feng Zhenghu believes that both the ruling party and the opposition must respect the authority of the Constitution. Only in this way can citizens’ rights be truly safeguarded. The Constitution is not only a tool to restrict power but also an important weapon for citizens to protect their own rights. By strengthening the spirit of the rule of law, we can gradually change society’s attitude toward the law, making compliance with the law a voluntary act for citizens, thereby promoting the rule of law in Chinese society.

2. Legal Rights Protection: The Core Path of the Citizens’ Rights Protection Movement

In Feng Zhenghu’s “constitutional rights protection” philosophy, legal rights protection is the core path of the citizens’ rights protection movement. He argues that citizens should use legal means to defend their constitutional rights rather than resorting to violence or other extreme methods. This approach to rights protection, which uses law as a weapon, is not only necessary for the realization of individual rights but also an important pathway for promoting the rule of law in society.

Through legal rights protection, citizens can challenge injustice within the legal framework and urge the government and relevant departments to administer according to law. This approach not only reduces social conflicts but also accumulates experience for the country’s legalization process. Feng Zhenghu believes that legal rights protection is a reformist rather than revolutionary approach, as it promotes social progress through peaceful means and avoids the risks of social turmoil.

3. Enhancing Civic Awareness: A Crucial Foundation for Advancing the Constitutional Process

Feng Zhenghu particularly emphasizes the importance of enhancing citizens’ constitutional and legal awareness. He believes that every Chinese citizen should understand and respect the authority of the constitution and regard it as the fundamental basis for safeguarding their rights. Only when citizens universally possess this awareness can the entire society recognize and practice the rule of law, thereby laying a solid foundation for the realization of constitutional democracy.

Enhancing civic awareness requires not only education and publicity, but also practical action. For example, citizens can gradually strengthen their trust in the constitution and the law by participating in legal proceedings and supervising government actions. The awakening of this awareness will provide a powerful driving force for the rule of law and constitutional progress in Chinese society.

4. Promoting political reform: a gradual path based on the rule of law

Feng Zhenghu believes that China’s political system reform should follow a gradual path rather than resorting to radical revolutionary methods. He proposes that gradually improving the system of people’s congresses based on the rule of law is an important pathway to achieving constitutional democracy. He advocates transforming current representatives of the people’s congresses into true political leaders who can better fulfill their duties, represent public opinion, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.

This gradual reform path aligns with China’s current national conditions and avoids social upheaval. By improving institutional design and gradually achieving the restraint and balance of power, conditions can be created for the ultimate realization of constitutional democracy.

5. Maintaining the unity and authority of the law

In the concept of “protecting the constitution and safeguarding rights,” maintaining the unity and authority of the law is an important component. Feng Zhenghu pointed out that there are some provisions in the current law that are unconstitutional or illegal, which not only undermine the authority of the constitution but also weaken the unity of the law. He called for the removal of these unconstitutional and illegal provisions to ensure the seriousness and unity of national law.

In addition, local governments and officials often act in their own interests when exercising power, thereby undermining the authority of the constitution. In response, Feng Zhenghu advocates using legal means to restrain the abuse of power, ensuring that officials always act within the framework of the law. This maintenance of the unity and authority of the law not only helps to strengthen citizens’ confidence in the law, but also promotes social fairness and justice.

6. Promoting social harmony: the ultimate goal of protecting rights in accordance with the law

Feng Zhenghu believes that the ultimate goal of protecting rights in accordance with the law is to promote social harmony and stability. He points out that only through effective legal constraints can social contradictions be reduced and social fairness and justice be achieved. Through protecting rights in accordance with the law, citizens and the government can establish a relationship of communication and interaction, seek space for compromise and cooperation, and thereby promote the realization of constitutional democracy.

In this process, both citizens and the government must adopt a peaceful attitude toward contradictions and conflicts. Feng Zhenghu emphasizes that the rights protection movement is not a process of confrontation, but a process of resolving issues through legal means. This peaceful approach not only maintains social stability but also creates a favorable environment for the realization of constitutional democracy.

7. Conclusion

Feng Zhenghu’s “constitutional rights protection” philosophy centers on the constitution, emphasizing the use of legal means to defend citizens’ rights, promote the rule of law in society, and advance the realization of constitutional democracy. The core of this philosophy lies in strengthening the spirit of the rule of law, advocating the protection of rights through legal means, promoting gradual political reform, while maintaining the unity and authority of the law. Through these pathways, Feng Zhenghu has provided feasible ideas for China’s legal system construction and political development.

In contemporary China, with the deepening development of the market economy and the increasing complexity of the social interest structure, the significance of the “constitutional protection and rights defense” philosophy has become increasingly prominent. It not only provides direction for citizens’ rights defense movements but also offers a feasible path for achieving constitutional democracy. Every citizen should actively engage in the cause of safeguarding human rights and promoting constitutional democracy with a peaceful attitude and sustained actions, contributing their own efforts to the progress of Chinese society.

June 11, 2025

Click here to read online.