The Legal Nature of Administrative Blacklists from a Judicial Perspective

With the advancement of the social integrity system, China has widely implemented the administrative blacklist system as a tool for administrative management. However, there are significant differences in judicial practice regarding the legal nature of the administrative blacklist, which has resulted in hindrances to the protection of the rights of those affected. Through an analysis of the determination of the nature of administrative blacklists in judicial decisions, this study has identified two main decision modes: the dual-order construction path and the single-order behavioural path. The former considers blacklisted behaviours as antecedent behaviours that do not produce actual impacts, while the latter may determine that the blacklisted behaviours have actual impacts on the rights of those involved. Through a thorough analysis of the adjudication logic of these two paths and their legal effects, this study has revealed the problems in the current judicial determination, including limitations in formal argumentation and insufficient protection of the rights of those affected. Building on this analysis, the study proposes the principle of substantively resolving administrative disputes and suggests that judicial review should prioritize the substantive impact of administrative acts to ensure effective remediation of the legitimate rights and interests of those affected. By standardizing and clarifying the substantive and procedural aspects of administrative blacklist cases in judicial review, this study aims to provide a theoretical basis for optimizing the administrative blacklist system and promoting the construction of the rule of law and the soundness of the social integrity system.