Abstract: Standard of contradiction is a standard of review of contents of rules based on the precondition of lawful authority, and its connotation in judicial review of normative documents needs to be defined by clarifying the authority of normative documents as a whole and setting judgment methods appropriately. In the past, courts, in confirming the creative function of normative documents, reviewed only for obvious literal conflicts, leading to an overly simplified standard of contradiction, In order to achieve a balance between the administrative reality and substantive judicial review, it's necessary to introduce indirect contradiction review to enrich the connotation of the standard, while partly recognizing the creative function of normative documents. This approach has legal bases and is supported by judicial practice in China. In light of China's legislative and judicial systems, this article proposals a contradiction standard system consists of standards at three levels of intensity, namely loose, moderate and rigorous, based on factors such as the nature of the matters under consideration, the authorization by upper-level laws, and the type of citizen's rights involved. Under loose contradiction standard, courts only conduct formal contradiction reviews. Moderate contradiction standard includes a preliminary review of rationality, requiring that normative documents contain no obvious irrationality and contribute to achieving legitimate administrative purposes. Rigorous contradiction standard includes an in-depth examination of reasonableness, requiring courts to conduct more cautious weighing of interests and administrative agencies to provide more thorough reasoning.

Key Words: normative documents; incidental review; contradiction; standards of review

Author: Dai Di, assistant research fellow, CASS Institute of Law;

Source: 6 (2023) Administrative Law Review