Following the politics of emerging democracies, the parity of three powers has served to be the main criterion followed in the constitutions of various countries. Notwithstanding, it is hard to define the “Administration” in nature. In terms of the function, “Administration” shall be held the most important means intended to achieve the purpose of a country’s existence. The administration covers not only enforcement of laws but also the mission to foster a life that meets social justice, to plan and promote infrastructure, and to guide and maintain the political development based on public opinion (public welfare). ”Administrative Law” refers to the concretized “Constitution”. “Jurisdiction” is the final line of defense to settle disputes and defend justice while the “administrative litigation” refers to the examination procedure for settling disputes about public laws subject to the ultimate jurisdiction of the administrative courts.
Given the separate political governance between the cross-straits due to historical factors, different legal systems were established accordingly. The difference in the existing administrative litigation acts applicable between the cross-straits in substance is so obvious that we wish to compare and study the same to better comprehend and anchor the administrative litigation systems between the cross-straits. This study is intended to better comprehend the concepts about administrative litigation acts and systems between the cross-straits and to frame the difference in the operation of its mechanisms through collection, analysis and comparison of the relevant data, in the hope of exploring the academic and practical development between the cross-straits by comparison and study, and particularly, providing the increasingly intensive exchange of administrative litigation systems between the cross-straits with the experience drawn therefrom and a platform for coherence with future amendments to the acts, if any.