On the Application of Decisions to Modify and Decisions to Revoke in Administrative Reconsideration

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614118

Author(s)

Chen Yang

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, Xinjiang University of Finance and Economics, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Abstract

Modification decisions and revocation decisions are the principal forms through which administrative reconsideration substantively resolves administrative disputes. Compared with decisions to uphold the original administrative act, they not only more clearly reflect the reconsideration authority’s diligence in case handling and its supervisory role over the respondent, but also more effectively facilitate the substantive resolution of disputes between the applicant and the respondent. In this sense, they help administrative reconsideration fulfill both its formal function as a mechanism for diverting administrative disputes and its institutional role as the primary channel for their substantive resolution. The newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law specifies three circumstances for modification decisions and four circumstances for revocation or partial revocation decisions. Although the current law has formally separated these two types of decisions, normative overlap in their application persists, and the abstract language of the statutory provisions remains difficult to connect with the circumstances of individual cases. As a result, the accurate application of these provisions, the avoidance of inconsistent outcomes in similar cases, and the enhancement of the credibility of administrative reconsideration have become pressing issues. Through doctrinal analysis and with reference to the three essential attributes of evidence, this article clarifies the relationship between the provisions governing modification and revocation decisions and examines the specific circumstances in which each should apply, with a view to providing practical guidance for their interpretation and application.

Keywords

Administrative Reconsideration; Modification Decision; Revocation Decision; Standards of Application

References

[1]Zhang, J. (2025). Modification decisions in administrative reconsideration: Positioning, application, and limitation. Social Science Abstracts, (7), 109–111. [2]Wang, W. (2023). The nature of the administrative reconsideration system and the perfection of the Administrative Reconsideration Law. Law Science Magazine, 44(4), 33–46. [3]Huang, K. (2024). On the limited application of modification decisions in administrative reconsideration. The Jurist, (6), 116–128, 192. [4]Wu, W. (2025). Practical challenges and coping strategies for the application of modification decisions in administrative reconsideration. Administration and Law, (8), 52–62. [5] Sun X .On the Specific Application Boundaries of the Proportionality Principle in the Field of Administrative Law. Scientific Journal Of Humanities and Social Sciences,2025,7(8):235-241. [6] Klatt M, Meister M. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality: New Perspectives on Judicial Review Intensity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2024, 44(1): 56-82. [7] Chu, Q. (2026). Reconstructing the exclusionary rule for illegal evidence from the perspective of fundamental rights intervention: Drawing on Germany's evidence prohibition system. Comparative Law Review, (1), 94-111. [8] Wang, Q. (2026). Technical construction of basic principles in the general provisions of administrative law. Science of Law (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 44(1), 100-112. [9] Van Drooghenbroeck S, Rizcallah C. The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk? German Law Journal, 2023, 24(2): 278-305. [10]U.S. Department of Commerce. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024. Federal Register, 2024, 89(211): 86234-86236.