Abstract:

In the normative context， supervisory accountability has the dual attributes of accountability power and disposal power. However， in practice， the current application of supervisory accountability deviates from this normative positioning， which is concentrated in the confusion and conflicts between supervisory accountability， other forms of accountability， and supervisory disposal methods at the application level. To realize the rule of law in supervision， promote the precision of supervisory accountability， and protect the legitimate rights and interests of those being held accountable， it is urgent to accurately delineate the boundaries of supervisory accountability to avoid practical problems such as the generalization and alienation of accountability. In response， supervisory authorities can construct a three-tier discrimination framework to clarify the boundaries of supervisory accountability and improve its standardization： using “behavioral discernment” to delineate the boundaries between supervision accountability and other supervisory disposal methods， determining whether accountability should be initiated； using “accountability discernment” to delineate the boundaries between supervisory accountability and other forms of accountability， determining whether supervisory accountability should or can be initiated； and using “value discernment” to delineate the boundaries between supervisory accountability and error-tolerant correction mechanisms， determining whether supervisory accountability can be deterred.

Key words: supervisory accountability, accountability power, supervisory disposal, precision of supervisory accountability, boundary of supervisory accountability