浅析“行政优益权”在行政协议纠纷中的适用问题--以行政机关签订的集体土地征收补偿协议为视角

浙江利群律师事务所  顾奇誌 李玥

【内容摘要】在中国,行政协议一般带有行政性与合同性的双重特征。由于中国立法部门目前还没有对行政优益权的概念进行过具体定义,但在相关司法解释中已对行政机关具有行政优益权进行了确认,这也是行政协议具有行政性的最突出的表现形式。行政优益权是指法律认可行政机关在特定条件下,可以冲破合同的限制,行使单方变更、解除合同的特别权利。为厘清行政优益权的内涵与适用,笔者将通过分析行政优益权在司法实践中的适用条件,结合农村集体土地征收补偿实践中的相关案例及突出问题,对涉及农村集体土地征收补偿安置纠纷,行政机关该如何适用行政优益权的问题进行论证分析。

【关键词】行政优益权  农村集体土地  司法审查

在中国，行政优益权往往与行政协议紧密相连，行政协议通常具有行政性和合同性的双重属性。行政协议即采用了协议的方式，又保留了行政行为的属性，而行政优益权是在特定情形下，法律认可行政机关可以突破合同的束缚，拥有单方变更、解除协议的特别权利。那么，究竟什么是行政优益权？在司法实践中行政机关行使行政优益权又需要满足什么条件？在农村集体土地征收补偿安置纠纷中，行政机关能否行使行政优益权单方变更甚至解除已经签订的征收补偿协议书？

为厘清上述疑问，笔者拟以行政优益权在司法审查中的适用作为分析基础，结合实践中农村集体土地征收补偿安置的相关案例及突出问题，对行政优益权在行政机关签订的集体土地征收补偿协议中的适用问题进行详细分析。

一、什么是行政优益权？

行政优益权，指的是行政机关在履行行政协议的过程中，为实现行政管理或公共服务目的或为保护公共利益而享有的超越合同约束的特别权利。我们可以通过两个案例来进一步了解行政优益权的含义，假设存在不行使行政优益权与行使行政优益权两种情形，分析是否会产生不同的结果。

案例一：某区人民政府根据市发展规划和市合村并城工作总体要求，开展该区合村并城工作，其中就包括王某所在的村庄。某区人民政府在与村民签订拆迁协议前制定了《拆迁补偿安置方案》，规定过渡期限24个月，过渡费发放标准为每月每平方米12元。2014年3月27日，其下属的项目指挥部与王某签订了《拆迁协议书》，约定过渡期为36个月。2015年初，王某村的合村并城工作正式启动，某区人民政府按照《拆迁补偿安置方案》内的临时过渡费标准发放给王某24个月过渡费，对剩余的12个月过渡费却拒不支付。某区人民政府不予支付过渡费的主要理由是依据《拆迁补偿安置方案》关于“过渡期限24个月”的规定，其只应当支付24个月的过渡费，而其它的过渡费应另行签订协议。

案例二：某市人民政府发布征收土地方案公告，其中涉及征收林某所在村的土地。某公司受某市人民政府委托实施拆迁，于2012年5月10日与林某签订了《拆迁协议书》（异地复建）并予以公证。根据拆迁协议书约定，由某公司拆除林某所在村拆迁范围内的两间房屋及构筑物和附属物，约定在林某仙（林某妹妹）放弃其名下三层楼房一间的安置权利后，另行为林某安置公寓式住宅一套。后林某仙向某市人民政府下属的城市新区建设发展中心书面明确表示放弃土地证及房产证上登记房屋的安置权利，并由林某获得公寓式住宅套房。某市人民政府以林某存在不合理析产为由，认为林某不符合再安置公寓式住宅的条件，如继续履行将有损社会公共利益，故拒绝为林某另行安置公寓式住宅一套。

在案例一中，虽然《拆迁协议书》中列明《拆迁补偿安置方案》系其签订的依据之一，但安置方案中的过渡费标准仅具有指导性，并不能据此得出村民的过渡费标准均应按安置方案的标准来实行的结论。况且《拆迁协议书》是双方自愿订立，不存在无效或者可撤销的情形。那么，如果行政机关以协议内容与其事先制定的行政规范性文件相悖为由，抗辩不能继续履行拆迁协议，否则将会损害公共利益，是否会得到支持？

而在案例二中，林某户在分家析产时确实存在违规行为，打了“擦边球”，按照当地的拆迁安置政策，依照林某户的安置条件不符合再安置一套套房的规定。但某市人民政府下属的城市新区建设发展中心在审查时，仍愿意给予安置，且林某、林某仙现已履行了房屋腾空、拆除等协议约定的义务。在此情况下，某市人民政府政府以违反安置政策为由决定不履行拆迁协议再安置一间套房的义务，是否合法？

笔者认为，不论是案例一还是案例二，仅以行政协议内容违反行政机关制定的行政规范性文件或政策规定来抗辩，很难得到法院支持。从协议签订的原则角度考虑,协议缔结的当事人一定要遵循诚实守信原则,从协议的行政化方面考虑,行政机关遵循诚实守信原则可以限制行政权利的恣意实施。在案件进入诉讼程序后,简单地以“违反政策规定”来对抗诚实守信原则,无异于以卵击石。那么,假设政府机构从继续履行协议会危害社会公共利益角度考虑,单方调整、解除已签订的协议,是否可行呢？在司法实践中,行政机关又应该如何正确地行使行政优益权才不会被认定为违法？

二、行政机关该如何正确地行使行政优益权？

（一）行政优益权的由来

行政优益权制度最早在法国被提出。1983年，法国行政法院在审理一起公共运输纠纷的案件中首次提出行政主体具有单方变更、解除协议的权力，后逐渐发展出了一套成熟的行政优益权理论。我国于2020年施行的《最高人民法院关于审理行政协议案件若干问题的规定》明确，在出现可能严重损害国家利益、社会公共利益的情形，行政机关变更、解除行政协议的，原告提起诉讼，人民法院不予支持。据此，对行政机关享有行政优益权在司法解释中正式得到确认。

（二）行使行政优益权的目的性、程序性要求

行政优益权作为行政机关在行政协议中专有的权利，其根本目的是为了维护和实现国家、社会公共利益。司法解释中也强调，行政机关只有在继续履行协议可能严重损害国家利益、社会公共利益的前提下作出的变更、解除协议的行政行为才不会被认定为违法。而在司法实践中，许多行政机关并不是出于维护和实现国家、社会公共利益的目的去变更、解除协议，更多的是出于其他目的。即便行政机关行使行政优益权符合目的性要求，但往往会忽略变更、解除的行政行仍应满足程序正当的要求。

比如“何某某诉贵州贵安新区马场镇人民政府等行政协议案”中，马场镇政府在二审期间以安置奖励计算错误等为由，单方作出《解除行政协议告知书》《解除行政协议决定书》，决定解除其与何某某于2018年9月19日订立的补充协议。本案经一、二审法院审理后认为，马场镇政府单方解除行政协议的目的更多的是为了少支付已经约定的奖励费，并不是为了维护公共利益，其做法有违行政机关行使行政优益权的目的性要求，存在对抗和规避一审判决的嫌疑，实际是对行政优益权的一种滥用，违反了行政机关应遵循诚实信用原则，故认定该行政行为违法。

再比如“王某诉太原市杏花岭区人民政府回迁安置方案”中，太原市杏花岭区人民政府通过制定《回迁安置方案》，将与王某签订的《成本价购房合同》中的售房单价调高，导致行政相对人需支付更多的购房款。该行为就是太原市杏花岭区人民政府行使行政优益权的表现。太原市杏花岭区人民政府在《回迁安置方案》制定、实施过程中均未征询过行政相对人的意见，剥夺了相对人陈述、申辩等程序权利，故其单方变更协议内容的行为违法。

（三）在农村宅基地拆迁安置纠纷中，行政机关行使行政优益权的条件分析

在农村宅基地拆迁安置纠纷中，拆迁安置工作往往具有群体广、进度慢、时效长的通病，部分拆迁户因自身拆迁利益无法得到满足甚至会演变成“钉子户”。而“钉子户”们签订拆迁协议书的背后往往夹杂着诸多社会因素和政治原因，从而导致拆迁协议书内容突破了拆迁安置政策，使行政机关在后期如何履行拆迁协议的时候陷入了两难境地。那么在处理此类案件时，行政机关如果想以行政优益权来突破合同约束需要具备什么条件？

首先，行使行政优益权应当具有必然性，即继续履行协议可能严重损害国家利益、社会公共利益。而对于“可能严重损害国家利益、社会公共利益的情形”的认定，笔者认为应结合以下几点进行判断：

1.可能损害国家利益、社会公共利益发生的时间节点。行政协议的订立必然以当时特定时空下的经济条件、法律政策、拆迁所在地当地的交易习惯等条件为基础，其中，公共利益的相关要求也是在订约时定格的，当时的公共利益需要是协议赖以成立的客观基础。如果损害公共利益的情形在拆迁协议签订前就已存在，行政机关应当预见到此风险，而不能再在协议签订后以履行协议将损害公共利益为理由变更、解除协议。在行政协议纠纷中，行政机关本就占主导地位，且以维护公共利益为己任，其自身肩负着保障公民基本权益的职责，这就要求行政机关拥有更高的注意义务，在签订行政协议前需充分考虑客观基础是否满足签订行政协议的条件，以确保公共利益不受损害。只有在协议成立后、履行完毕前公共利益条件发生变化，比如本文提到的案例二中，因安置套房间数有限，而履行过程中出现政策调整，该区域无法再安置套房，致使协议无法继续履行，才构成行政主体单方变更、解除协议的正当理由。即行政优益权用以应对临时变化的情形，若非情势发生变更，不能启动。

2.损害公共利益的事由应不可归责于协议当事人。如果行政主体仅以相对人违反协议约定损害公共利益为由变更、解除合同，则该行为应认定为行政主体行使合同权利而非行政优益权。同样以本文案例二为例，如果不是因为突发的、实在无法避免的政策调整或其他原因导致不能给林某安置套房，行政机关不履行安置义务应认定为违约，即便是在履行过程中作出单方变更、解除协议的行为也将被认定为违法。

3.对行政优益权所维护的公共利益价值的判断。行使行政优益权的另一方面意味着行政相对人的合法权利将受到损害，这就要求行使行政优益权所要保护的公共利益必须是重大公共利益，只有在行政优益权所保护的社会公共利益明显要优越于将要损害的私人权益时才能采取单方变更、解除协议的方式。如前文提到的案例一，某区人民政府所要保护的公共利益明显不属于重大公共利益，且其价值对于相对方的损失而言明显是等同的。在此情形下行政机关就不能行使单方变更、解除协议的行为。

4.行政机关需要对变更、解除协议的行为承担举证责任。由于“公共利益”所涉及的内容及定义过于宽泛，容易导致被过分解读与适用，故行政优益权所要保护的必须是具有直接关联性的公共利益，且能证明受益的群体是社会中不特定的多数人。另外，行政主体须对行为的必要性，行为目的，事实和法律依据等内容达到充分证明的程度，避免将部门利益、单纯的地方财政利益与公共利益混为一谈。

三、建议：严格把握行政优益权的使用，建立补偿救济机制

笔者认为，鉴于目前我国立法上并没有对行政优益权的行使程序和条件作出相应的规定，为保护政府在公众面前的公信力，行政优益权的启动必须受到严格规制。建议行政机关在处理农村宅基地拆迁安置工作中采取分阶段部署的方式，签订拆迁协议前充分审核答应各拆迁户的拆迁安置条件是否都公平公正，坚决杜绝“开后门”等违规行为，同时应考虑协议签订后的履约能力问题。在协议的履行过程中，坚持诚实守信的原则，以继续履行拆迁协议为第一要求，只有在没有其他替代方案，协商变更等方式均无法实现目标时，才能考虑行使行政优益权。在决定行使行政优益权前，为防止激化、加剧被拆迁对象的不满情绪与抵触心理，避免出现行政机关作出的变更、解除行政协议行为因程序原因被认定违法的情形，行政机关应充分听取行政相对人的陈述、申辩意见，有条件的应积极召开听证会，对将作出的行政行为进行充分的论证分析，保障行政相对人拥有足够的知情权与陈述申辩权，坚持多协商，多沟通、充分履行告知义务，更要重视程序上的规范、公开，在最终作出是否行使行政优益权的决定前，建议进行集体审议。

而在农村宅基地拆迁安置过程中，一旦出现行政机关行使行政优益权的情况，村民的安置利益或多或少都会受到影响。建议建立适当的补偿机制，虽说行政机关行使行政优益权变更、解除协议也是无奈之举，但为平衡保护公共利益与保障行政相对人权益之间的关系，可以适当的给予行政相对人补偿，这也有利于避免行政机关作出的行政行为不被相对人所理解，而引发行政复议或行政诉讼。

参考书目

[1]（论文）：赵宏：《试论行政合同中的诚实信用原则》，《行政法学研究》，2005年第2期。

[2]（论著）：刘太刚：《公共利益的认定标准及立法思路——以公共利益的概念功能为视角》，《国家行政学院学报》，2012年第1期。

[3]（论著）：浙江省高级人民法院行政审判庭：《行政优益权的理论基础与行使规则探析》，《法律适用》，2022年第3期。

[4]（论著）：沈广明：《行政协议单方变更或解除权行使条件的司法认定》，《行政法学研究》，2018年第3期。

Analysis of the Application of "Administrative Preferential Rights" in Administrative Agreement Disputes -- From the Perspective of the Collective Land Acquisition Compensation Agreement Signed by Administrative Organs

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm Gu Qizhi and Li Yue

In China, administrative agreements generally have dual characteristics of administrative and contractual nature. Due to the fact that the Chinese legislative branch has not yet provided a specific definition of the concept of administrative priority, it has been confirmed in relevant judicial interpretations that administrative agencies have administrative priority, which is also the most prominent manifestation of the administrative nature of administrative agreements. Administrative priority right refers to the special right recognized by law for administrative agencies to break through the limitations of contracts and exercise unilateral modification and termination of contracts under specific conditions. To clarify the connotation and application of administrative priority rights, the author will analyze the application conditions of administrative priority rights in judicial practice, combined with relevant cases and prominent issues in rural collective land acquisition compensation practice, and demonstrate and analyze how administrative agencies should apply administrative priority rights in disputes involving rural collective land acquisition compensation and resettlement.

【 Key words 】 Administrative preferential rights Rural collective land judicial review

In China, administrative priority rights are often closely linked to administrative agreements, which typically have dual attributes of administrative and contractual nature. Administrative agreements adopt the form of agreements while retaining the attributes of administrative actions, and administrative priority rights refer to the special rights recognized by law for administrative agencies to break through the constraints of contracts and unilaterally modify or terminate agreements in specific circumstances. So, what exactly is administrative privilege? What conditions do administrative agencies need to meet to exercise administrative priority rights in judicial practice? In disputes over compensation and resettlement for rural collective land acquisition, can administrative agencies exercise their administrative priority right to unilaterally change or even terminate the signed expropriation compensation agreement?

To clarify the above questions, the author intends to use the application of administrative priority rights in judicial review as the analysis basis, combined with relevant cases and prominent issues of rural collective land acquisition compensation and resettlement in practice, to conduct a detailed analysis of the application of administrative priority rights in collective land acquisition compensation agreements signed by administrative agencies.

1、 What is administrative privilege?

Administrative preferential rights refer to the special rights enjoyed by administrative agencies in the process of fulfilling administrative agreements, beyond contractual constraints, to achieve administrative management or public service purposes or to protect public interests. We can further understand the meaning of administrative priority rights through two cases. Assuming that there are two situations where administrative priority rights cannot be exercised and administrative priority rights are exercised, we can analyze whether different results will be generated.

Case 1: The people's government of a certain district carried out the work of merging villages and cities in accordance with the city's development plan and the overall requirements of merging villages and cities, including the village where Wang is located. The people's government of a certain district formulated the "Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Plan" before signing a demolition agreement with the villagers, which stipulates a transitional period of 24 months and a transitional fee payment standard of 12 yuan per square meter per month. On March 27, 2014, its subordinate project headquarters signed a "Demolition Agreement" with Wang, agreeing on a transition period of 36 months. At the beginning of 2015, the work of merging villages and cities in Wang's village was officially launched. The people's government of a certain district distributed a 24 month transition fee to Wang according to the temporary transition fee standard in the "Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Plan", but refused to pay the remaining 12 months of transition fee. The main reason why the people's government of a certain district does not pay the transition fee is that according to the "24 month transition period" stipulated in the "Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Plan," it should only pay the transition fee for 24 months, while other transition fees should be signed separately.

Case 2: The people's government of a certain city issued a land acquisition plan announcement, which involves the acquisition of land from the village where Lin is located. A certain company was commissioned by the people's government of a certain city to carry out demolition. On May 10, 2012, it signed a "demolition agreement" with Lin and notarized it. According to the demolition agreement, a certain company will demolish two houses, structures, and attachments within the demolition scope of the village where Lin is located. It is agreed that after Lin (Lin's sister) waives his right to relocate one of the three story buildings under his name, he will move on to another apartment style residential unit for Lin. Later, Lin Mouxian explicitly stated in writing to the Urban New Area Construction and Development Center under the People's Government of a certain city that he would waive the resettlement rights of houses registered on the land and property certificates, and that Lin would obtain apartment style residential suites. The people's government of a certain city, citing Lin's unreasonable property division, believes that Lin does not meet the conditions for relocating an apartment type residence. If he continues to fulfill this obligation, it will be detrimental to social and public interests. Therefore, they refuse to relocate another apartment type residence for Lin.

In Case One, although the "Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Plan" is listed in the "Demolition Agreement" as one of the basis for its signing, the transition fee standards in the resettlement plan are only guiding and cannot be used to conclude that the transition fee standards for villagers should be implemented according to the standards of the resettlement plan. Moreover, the "Demolition Agreement" is voluntarily signed by both parties and there is no invalidity or revocable situation. So, if the administrative agency argues that it cannot continue to fulfill the demolition agreement on the grounds that the content of the agreement contradicts the administrative normative documents formulated in advance, otherwise it will harm public interests. Will it receive support?

In Case 2, Lin's household did indeed engage in illegal behavior during the separation of property and played a "margin ball". According to local demolition and resettlement policies, according to Lin's resettlement conditions, they did not meet the requirements for relocating another set of housing. However, during the review by the Urban New Area Construction and Development Center under the People's Government of a certain city, they were still willing to provide resettlement, and Lin and Lin have now fulfilled their obligations under the agreements on vacating and demolishing houses. In this situation, is it legal for the government of a certain city to decide not to fulfill the obligation of relocating another suite under the demolition agreement on the grounds of violating the resettlement policy?

The author believes that whether it is Case One or Case Two, it is difficult to obtain court support by solely defending the content of administrative agreements against administrative normative documents or policy provisions formulated by administrative agencies. From the perspective of the principles of agreement signing, the parties to the agreement must adhere to the principle of honesty and trustworthiness. From the administrative aspect of the agreement, following the principle of honesty and trustworthiness can limit the arbitrary implementation of administrative rights by administrative organs. After the case enters the litigation process, simply opposing the principle of honesty and trustworthiness with "violating policy regulations" is like hitting the stone with an egg. So, assuming that government agencies consider that continuing to fulfill agreements would harm social and public interests, is it feasible to unilaterally adjust or terminate signed agreements? In judicial practice, how should administrative agencies correctly exercise administrative priority rights so as not to be deemed illegal?

2、 How should administrative agencies correctly exercise administrative priority rights?

（1） The Origin of Administrative Preferential Rights

The system of administrative privilege was first proposed in France. In 1983, the French Administrative Court first proposed in a public transportation dispute case that the administrative subject had the power to unilaterally change or terminate the agreement, and gradually developed a mature theory of administrative priority rights. The "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases" implemented in 2020 in China clearly states that in cases where there is a possibility of serious harm to national interests and social public interests, if an administrative agency changes or terminates an administrative agreement, the plaintiff shall file a lawsuit, and the people's court shall not support it. Based on this, the right of administrative priority enjoyed by administrative organs has been officially confirmed in judicial interpretation.

（2） Purpose and procedural requirements for exercising administrative priority rights

As an exclusive right of administrative agencies in administrative agreements, the fundamental purpose of administrative priority rights is to safeguard and realize the public interests of the country and society. The judicial interpretation also emphasizes that administrative actions made by administrative agencies to change or terminate agreements will not be deemed illegal unless they continue to fulfill agreements that may seriously harm national and public interests. In judicial practice, many administrative agencies do not change or terminate agreements for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the national and social public interests, but rather for other purposes. Even if the exercise of administrative priority rights by administrative agencies meets the requirements of purpose, administrative actions that often overlook changes or dismissals should still meet the requirements of procedural legitimacy.

For example, in the case of "He v. the People's Government of Machang Town, Gui'an New Area, Guizhou", during the second instance, the Machang Town government unilaterally issued a "Notice on Termination of Administrative Agreement" and a "Decision on Termination of Administrative Agreement" on the grounds of incorrect calculation of resettlement rewards, and decided to terminate the supplementary agreement signed between him and He on September 19, 2018. After the trial of the first and second instance courts, it was found that the unilateral termination of the administrative agreement by the Machang Town Government was more aimed at reducing the agreed reward fees and not at safeguarding public interests. Its approach violated the purpose requirements of the administrative organs to exercise administrative priority rights, and there was suspicion of confrontation and avoidance of first instance judgments. In fact, it was an abuse of administrative priority rights, which violated the principle of good faith that administrative organs should follow, Therefore, it is determined that the administrative act is illegal.

For example, in the "Wang v. Xinghualing District People's Government Relocation and Resettlement Plan of Taiyuan City", the Xinghualing District People's Government of Taiyuan City raised the selling unit price in the "Cost Price Purchase Contract" signed with Wang by formulating the "Relocation and Resettlement Plan", resulting in the administrative counterpart having to pay more for the purchase. This behavior is a manifestation of the exercise of administrative preferential rights by the Xinghualing District People's Government of Taiyuan City. The Xinghualing District People's Government of Taiyuan City did not consult with the administrative counterpart during the formulation and implementation of the "Resettlement Plan", depriving the counterpart of procedural rights such as statement and defense. Therefore, its unilateral change of the agreement content is illegal.

（3） Analysis of the Conditions for Administrative Organs to Exercise the Right of Administrative Advantage in Disputes over Rural Homestead Demolition and Resettlement

In disputes over the demolition and resettlement of rural homesteads, the demolition and resettlement work often has common problems such as a wide group, slow progress, and long time frame. Some demolition households may even evolve into "nail households" due to their own demolition interests being unable to be satisfied. However, behind the signing of demolition agreements by "nail households", there are often many social and political factors, which lead to the content of the demolition agreement breaking through the demolition and resettlement policies, causing administrative agencies to face a dilemma in how to fulfill the demolition agreement in the later stage. So when dealing with such cases, what conditions do administrative agencies need to meet if they want to break through contractual constraints with administrative priority rights?

Firstly, the exercise of administrative priority rights should have inevitability, that is, continuing to fulfill the agreement may seriously harm national interests and social public interests. For the determination of situations that may seriously harm national interests and social public interests, the author believes that the following points should be considered for judgment:

1. The timing of potential harm to national interests and social public interests. The conclusion of an administrative agreement is inevitably based on the specific economic conditions, legal policies, and local transaction habits of the demolition location at that time. Among them, the relevant requirements of public interest are also fixed at the time of signing the agreement, and the public interest needs at that time are the objective basis on which the agreement is established. If the situation that damages public interests already exists before the signing of the demolition agreement, the administrative agency should anticipate this risk and cannot change or terminate the agreement after the agreement is signed on the grounds that fulfilling the agreement will harm public interests. In administrative agreement disputes, administrative agencies already occupy a dominant position and take safeguarding public interests as their own responsibility. They bear the responsibility of safeguarding the basic rights and interests of citizens, which requires administrative agencies to have a higher duty of care. Before signing an administrative agreement, they need to fully consider whether the objective basis meets the conditions for signing an administrative agreement to ensure that public interests are not harmed. Only when there is a change in public interest conditions after the agreement is established and before the completion of performance, such as in Case 2 mentioned in this article, due to the limited number of resettlement suites and policy adjustments during the performance process, the area is no longer able to accommodate suites, resulting in the inability to continue performance of the agreement, can it constitute a legitimate reason for the administrative subject to unilaterally change or terminate the agreement. The administrative priority right is used to respond to temporary changes, and cannot be activated unless the situation changes.

2. The cause of harm to public interests should not be attributed to the parties to the agreement. If the administrative subject only changes or terminates the contract on the grounds that the other party violates the agreement and damages the public interest, then this behavior should be recognized as the administrative subject exercising the contractual rights rather than the administrative priority rights. Taking Case 2 of this article as an example, if it is not due to sudden and unavoidable policy adjustments or other reasons that Lin cannot be resettled, the administrative agency's failure to fulfill the resettlement obligation should be deemed a breach of contract. Even if unilateral changes or termination of the agreement are made during the performance process, it will be deemed illegal.

3. Judgment on the public interest value maintained by administrative priority rights. On the other hand, exercising the administrative priority right means that the legitimate rights of the administrative counterpart will be harmed, which requires that the public interests to be protected by exercising the administrative priority right must be significant public interests. Only when the social public interests protected by the administrative priority right are clearly superior to the private interests that will be damaged can unilateral changes or termination of agreements be adopted. As mentioned in case one earlier, the public interests that the people's government of a certain district needs to protect clearly do not belong to significant public interests, and their value is clearly equivalent to the losses of the other party. In this case, the administrative agency cannot exercise the act of unilaterally changing or terminating the agreement.

4. Administrative agencies need to bear the burden of proof for the change or termination of agreements. Due to the overly broad content and definition of "public interest", it is easy to be interpreted and applied excessively. Therefore, the protection of administrative priority rights must be directly related to public interests, and it can be proven that the beneficiaries are the unspecified majority in society. In addition, administrative entities must fully demonstrate the necessity, purpose, facts, and legal basis of their actions, and avoid confusing departmental interests, purely local financial interests, and public interests.

3、 Suggestion: Strictly grasp the use of administrative priority rights and establish a compensation and relief mechanism

The author believes that in view of the lack of corresponding regulations on the procedures and conditions for the exercise of administrative priority rights in China's legislation, in order to protect the government's credibility in front of the public, the initiation of administrative priority rights must be strictly regulated. It is recommended that administrative agencies adopt a phased deployment approach in dealing with the demolition and resettlement of rural homesteads. Before signing the demolition agreement, they should fully review whether the demolition and resettlement conditions for each relocated household are fair and just, firmly eliminate violations such as "opening the back door", and consider the issue of the ability to fulfill the agreement after signing it. In the process of fulfilling the agreement, the principle of honesty and trustworthiness should be adhered to, and the first requirement is to continue fulfilling the demolition agreement. Only when there are no other alternative solutions, negotiation and change methods that cannot achieve the goal, can the exercise of administrative priority be considered. Before deciding to exercise the administrative priority right, in order to prevent the intensification and aggravation of the dissatisfaction and resistance of the demolished object, and to avoid situations where the change or termination of the administrative agreement made by the administrative agency is deemed illegal due to procedural reasons, the administrative agency should fully listen to the statements and defense opinions of the administrative counterpart, and if conditions permit, actively hold a hearing to fully demonstrate and analyze the administrative action to be taken, Ensure that administrative counterparts have sufficient rights to know and to state and defend themselves, adhere to more consultation, communicate more, and fully fulfill their disclosure obligations, and pay more attention to procedural norms and openness. Before making a final decision on whether to exercise administrative priority rights, it is recommended to conduct collective deliberation.

In the process of rural homestead demolition and resettlement, once administrative agencies exercise administrative priority rights, the resettlement interests of villagers will be more or less affected. It is recommended to establish an appropriate compensation mechanism. Although the exercise of administrative priority rights by administrative organs to change or terminate agreements is also a helpless move, in order to balance the relationship between protecting public interests and safeguarding the rights and interests of administrative counterparts, appropriate compensation can be given to administrative counterparts. This is also beneficial to avoid administrative actions made by administrative organs that are not understood by the counterparts and may lead to administrative reconsideration or litigation.

Bibliography

[1] (Paper): Zhao Hong: "On the Principle of Good Faith in Administrative Contracts", "Research on Administrative Law", Issue 2, 2005.

[2] (Essay): Liu Taigang: "Criteria for the Recognition of Public Interest and Legislative Ideas - From the Perspective of the Conceptual Function of Public Interest", Journal of the National School of Administration, 2012, Issue 1.

[3] (Essay): Administrative Trial Division of the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court: "Theoretical Basis and Exercise Rules of Administrative Advantage Rights", "Application of Law", Issue 3, 2022.

[4] (Treatise): Shen Guangming: "Judicial Determination of the Conditions for the Exercise of the Right to Unilateral Change or Termination of Administrative Agreements", "Research in Administrative Law", Issue 3, 2018.