Welcome to Francis Academic Press

International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 2022, 4(13); doi: 10.25236/IJFS.2022.041310.

On the application and regulation of administrative punishment discretionary standards


Puqing Wang

Corresponding Author:
Puqing Wang

School of Law, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi, China


As one of the most suitable tools of power control, the discretionary benchmark should shine brightly in practice, but there are problems of rigidity and abuse in practice. After proving the legitimacy of escape behavior under case justice, combined with the formulation status and applicable rules of escape clause, analyzing the existing situation of omission and arbitrary contradiction of escape behavior in practice, we can draw a conclusion that escape should be considered in the special circumstances of the case discretion benchmark. However, the escape application of discretionary benchmark is not arbitrary. In view of the escape behavior may lead to the risk of power abuse and damage the value of power control by rules, it is necessary to establish a set of mechanisms to strictly restrict the pre-initiation, in-process operation and post-supervision of escape behavior, so as to ensure that escape behavior can better play its value.


Administrative punishment; Discretionary benchmark; Benchmark escape; Escape norm; Case justice

Cite This Paper

Puqing Wang. On the application and regulation of administrative punishment discretionary standards. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2022), Vol. 4, Issue 13: 61-69. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2022.041310.


[1] Bernard Schwartz. Administrative Law [M], translated by Xu Bing, People's Publishing House, 1986.

[2] Liu Fuyuan. Administrative Self-control: Exploring the Theory and Practice of Government Self-Control[M], Law Press, 2011.

[3] Zhou Youyong. The legalization of administrative punishment discretionary standards and their limits:Evaluation of Article 34 of the newly revised Administrative Punishment Law[J].Legal Science(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law),2021,39(05):53-61.

[4] Wang Xizin. Discretionary Benchmark:Innovation or Misuse of Technology[J].Legal Research, 2008, 30(05): 36-48.

[5] Wenshan County People's Court of Yunnan Province (2007) Wenxing Chu Zi No. 22 Administrative Judgment, Yunnan Province Wenshan Zhuang and Miao Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People's Court (2008) Wenxing Zhong Zi No. 3 Administrative Judgment. https: // yunnanexploration. com/ destinations/ wenshan

[6] Yu Lingyun. Wandering between Norm and Rigidity:Reflections on the Practice of Administrative Discretion Benchmarks in Jinhua[J].Tsinghua Law Science,2008(03):54-80.

[7] Zhou Youyong. The institutional positioning of discretionary standards:From the perspective of administrative self-control[J]. Jurist,2011(04):1-14+176.

[8] Xiong Zhanglin. On the escape clause in the discretionary standard[J].Journal of Law and Business,2019,36(03):50-62.

[9] Zhou Youyong. As a discretionary standard and its effect definition as an administrative self-control norm [J].Contemporary Law, 2014, 28(01):30-38.

[10] Wang Guisong. Setting and application of administrative discretion benchmark [J]. Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law, 2016, 19 (03): 65-76.

[11] Zhou Youyong, ZHOU Lejun. On the relativity of the validity of discretionary benchmarks and its selective application [J].Administrative Law Research, 2018(02):3-13.

[12] Xiong Zhanglin. Restatement of the operating principle of administrative discretionary benchmark [M], Peking University Press, 2020.

[13] Wang Tianhua. Discretionary Criteria and Individual Circumstances Consideration Obligations——Zhou Wenming v. Wenshan Traffic Police Punishment Case of Not Complying with the "Red Head Document"[J]. Jiaotong University Jurisprudence, 2011,2(01):229-235.

[14] Zhou Youyong. Research on Administrative Discretion Benchmarks [M], Chinese Minmin University Press, 2015.

[15] Zhang Zhiyuan. The theoretical paradox of administrative discretionary benchmark and its dissolution [J].Legal System and Social Development, 2011, 17(02):152-160.

[16] Liu Le. On the judicial review of the escape of administrative discretion standards [D].Nanjing University, 2020.

[17] He Haibo. On the "obvious impropriety" of administrative behavior [J].Legal Research, 2016, 38(03): 70-88.

[18] Chen Peng. Normative interpretation of the filing and review system for major specific administrative acts [J].Politics and Law, 2012(05):74-83.

[19] Wang Guisong. On the intensity of judicial review of administrative discretion [J].Journal of Law and Business, 2012, 29(04):66-76.