【正文】 中部門的抵制。第五章提出了我國(guó)行政復(fù)議機(jī)構(gòu)改革的基本構(gòu)想。為確保行政復(fù)議委員會(huì)之地位相對(duì)獨(dú)立，各級(jí)政府應(yīng)當(dāng)恰當(dāng)定位并準(zhǔn)確理解其組織領(lǐng)導(dǎo)與保障之責(zé)，上級(jí)行政復(fù)議委員會(huì)也應(yīng)當(dāng)規(guī)范其業(yè)務(wù)指導(dǎo)內(nèi)容與方式，而且行政復(fù)議委員會(huì)不應(yīng)當(dāng)在行政訴訟中當(dāng)被告。關(guān)鍵詞：行政復(fù)議制度；機(jī)構(gòu)改革；行政復(fù)議委員會(huì)1 / 251AbstractThe reform of the administrative review agency is a significant theoretical project worthy of an allaround and indepth study. In the preface, the author of the thesis briefly introduces the origin, significance, status and inadequacies, innovation, ideas and methodology of the research. And then, in the body of the thesis, the author moves on to study the project from five aspects in the following five chapters. In chapter one, the author analyzes the necessity of the reform of the administrative review agency. Under the current situation, there is no denying that the administrative disputes will inevitably exist for a long time. Therefore, government ans at various levels, while thinking about how to reduce the number of the administrative disputes, should dwell more on how to resolve those disputes effectively. As for the design of the system of administrative dispute resolution, the experience of developed countries tells us that the administrative review system and the administrative litigation system are both reliable ways, with the former being more important. Although the administrative review system and the administrative litigation system have already been determined as the main systems to resolve administrative disputes by the current laws of China, however, this arrangement deviates greatly from the practice and both systems did not play their due roles in the process of administrative dispute resolution. Originally, the administrative review system should have had its advantages as the administrative dispute resolution system. The reason why it has failed to effectively play it’s role is the defects in its own design, one of the most serious problems being that the administrative review agency is not uniform, independent and unprofessional, which in turn directly or indirectly affect the other aspects of the administrative review system. Therefore, to reform and improve the administrative review system, the most important thing is a radical reform of the administrative review agency.In chapter two, the author probes into the director of the reform to the administrative review agency. The most essential reason of the defect and practical difficulties of the administrative review agency is that people fit a false orientation to the character of the administrative review system. Both in the lawmaking proceedings and in the actual practice, the administrative review system is deemed to be an administrative supervision system, with its primary function being to supervise administrative actions. Influenced by this concept, the administrative review system legislation makes a point of not setting up an independent and selfanized reviewing operating mechanism, which results in the difficulties in the operation of the administrative review agency. However, the power of administrative review, as a power separated from the administrative power, should belong to the scope of judicial power. The judicial nature of the power of administrative review makes the administrative review to be judicial. Thus, as an administrative and judicial system to solve administrative disputes, the initial and primacy function of the administrative review system should be safeguarding and relieving the administrative counterpart’s rights. Only when we clarify these new ideas of the administrative review, can we probe into the settingup of the unified, independent and professional agency of administrative review.In chapter three, the author introduces the experience of setting up the administrative review agency of others countries. The stones of those hills may be used to polish gems. Because of differences in political system, legal tradition, cultural background and realistic national conditions, the administrative review system carries on different forms in different countries. Generally, there are the European model, the AngloAmerican model and the East Asian model, with France and Germany, Britain and the United States, Japan and South Korea being typically representative. There are also differences in setting up the administrative review agency among those countries. Because of the developed administrative court system, the construction of France’s and Germany’s administrative review ans is relatively weak。 the administrative review agencies in South Korea and Taiwan bine advantages of not just continental law system but also AngloAmerican law system, whose unified administrative review agency and professional independence is praiseworthy. Looking through the construction of the 3 / 251administrative review agency among these typical countries, we can see it’s a process from dispersal to unity, from subsidiary to independence. And in this process, the professional level is also growing. The reform of the administrative review agency should draw on these successful experience, especially the sound experience of administrative tribunal of the UK and the administrative review mittee of Korea.In chapter four, the author mainly discusses the pilot reform of the administrative review agency. Under the uniform arrangement of the State Council Legal Office, many local authorities have carried out the pilot reform in the form of administrative review mittee since 2022. And three models, namely the dispersion model, the relatively centralized model and the total centralized model, have gradually been developed in this process of reform. The dispersion model means that mittee is distributed in decentralized administrative review authorities at various levels. The relatively centralized model is a relatively centralized arrangment in the governments at all levels and a dispersed arrangment in the parts of the