“主渠道”视角下行政复议与行政诉讼的衔接问题研究

Research on the Interface between Administrative Reconsideration and Administrative Litigation from the “Primary Channel” Perspective

摘要: 随着新《行政复议法》的颁布实施，“将行政复议作为化解行政争议的主要途径”已成为明确的立法要求。该法定的功能定位，预示着我国行政救济格局正在经历结构性调整，行政复议制度将承担更为重要的争议化解职能。本文围绕行政复议与行政诉讼的衔接问题展开研究，首先厘清“主渠道”目标的多维内涵，明确行政复议“兼具行政性与司法性的独立争议解决机制”属性，以及行政诉讼“最后防线”的功能定位。通过分析当前两者衔接的实践困境，发现受案范围趋同化制约主渠道效能发挥、前置扩张与自由选择并行导致程序空转、共同被告制度引发复议功能异化等核心问题。在此基础上，提出重塑制度定位实现差异化互补、优化程序衔接构建“分流–协作”机制、完善复议程序激励实质化解的路径建议。研究旨在通过理顺两者关系，构建分层递进、协同高效的行政争议解决体系，既强化行政复议的主渠道作用，又发挥行政诉讼的司法保障功能，最终实现行政争议的实质性化解。

Abstract: With the enactment and implementation of the new Administrative Reconsideration Law, “establishing administrative reconsideration as the primary channel” for resolving administrative disputes has become a clear legislative mandate. This statutory functional positioning signals a structural realignment within China’s system of administrative remedies, wherein the administrative reconsideration system is poised to assume a more significant role in dispute resolution. This study focuses on the interface between administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation. It begins by clarifying the multidimensional implications of the “primary channel” objective, defining the nature of administrative reconsideration as an “independent dispute resolution mechanism integrating both administrative and judicial characteristics”, and situating administrative litigation as the “final safeguard”. Through an analysis of current practical challenges in their coordination, the study identifies core issues such as the convergence of the scope of cases acceptable, which constrains the effectiveness of the primary channel; procedural redundancy arising from the parallel expansion of prerequisite reconsideration and free choice models; and the distortion of the reconsideration function induced by the co-defendant mechanism. Building on this analysis, the study proposes pathways for improvement, including redefining institutional roles to achieve complementary differentiation, optimizing procedural interfaces to establish a “diversion-collaboration” mechanism, and refining reconsideration procedures to incentivize substantive dispute resolution. The research aims to rationalize the relationship between the two mechanisms, establish a tiered, coordinated, and efficient administrative dispute resolution system, strengthen the primary role of administrative reconsideration, leverage the judicial safeguard function of administrative litigation, and ultimately achieve the substantive resolution of administrative disputes.