加強行政壟斷的法律治理，對於保護市場公平競爭，提高經濟運行效率，具有十分重要的意義。對於大力推行社會主義市場經濟的中國，更是如此。

《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》（以下簡稱《反壟斷法》）第五章專章規定了濫用行政權力排除、限制競爭行為的規範問題，據此，學界普遍認為行政壟斷是一種法律絕對禁止的壟斷行為，也即行政壟斷是不合法的。然而，行政壟斷作為一種公權力尤其是行政權力的運作，其對於經濟社會的發展，尤其是維護消費者利益和社會公共利益，也有不可忽視的存在價值。也就是說，行政壟斷具有存在的合理性。如何協調行政壟斷合法性與合理性之間的關係，是當前中國行政壟斷法律治理亟待解決的首要問題。

協調行政壟斷合法性與合理性之間的關係，首先應客觀認識行政壟斷合法性與合理性的分離狀態。為此，本文以行政壟斷合法性與合理性分離為視角，在全面分析合理與不合理行政壟斷和合法與不合法行政壟斷之不完全對應狀態後，展開對文章核心命題的論證。全文共分五章。

第一章為“行政壟斷的再認識”。行政壟斷是基於公權力而形成的壟斷，因此行政壟斷的本質是公權力之運行。從社會經濟影響角度，行政壟斷具有一定的合理性和不合理性。從實證法角度，行政壟斷有的處於合法狀態，有的則處於不合法狀態。行政壟斷的合理性與合法性不完全對應，合理的行政壟斷未必符合實證法的要求，不合理的行政壟斷也可能以合法的方式存在。

第二章為“中國行政壟斷的基本情況”。當前中國行政壟斷是一種權力主導模式，呈較強的權力色彩，具體表現為特殊商品與服務的專營、專賣、行業壟斷或地區壟斷等。中國行政壟斷的形成有其深刻的歷史背景，和當下的經濟管理體制也密切相關。行政壟斷對中國經濟社會發展造成了較大的影響，消極方面表現為阻滯社會自由競爭，損害社會福利；積極方面表現為矯正市場失靈，維護公共利益和社會公平。

第三章為“中國行政壟斷的治理困境和解決路徑”。中國行政壟斷的法律治理面臨諸多困境，立法不盡科學，執法難有成效，司法也力不從心。立法是法律治理的源頭，當前中國行政壟斷困境的解決之道一方面在於完善立法，破除立法中的部門利益；另一方面在於強化司法，維護法治的底線和尊嚴。

第四章為“合理行政壟斷的設定：堅持立法保留原則”。行政壟斷合理性與合法性的分離是一種實然狀態，但卻非應然。通過法律保留原則的堅持，行政壟斷的合理性與合法性實現了一致。合理的行政壟斷只能通過法律予以規定，法律未予規定的，即為不合理行政壟斷。《反壟斷法》對特定壟斷情形的豁免和法律保留原則並不違背，但《反壟斷法》的豁免應保持一定的限度。

第五章為“不合理行政壟斷控制：強化司法審查”。不合理行政壟斷的控制應強化司法審查。一方面，強化司法審查有助於更好甄別行政壟斷的合理性與合法性，另一方面，強化司法審查有助於實現行政壟斷工具理性與價值理性的統一。強化司法審查的主要內容有：一是應整合行政壟斷規定，明確司法審查依據；二是明晰原告資格，保障受害者訴權；三是引進“行政法律關係論”，創新司法審查方法。

通過上述論證，本文得出如下結論：對於合理行政壟斷，應堅持立法保留原則，只能通過法律予以設定；對於不合理行政壟斷，應強化司法審查，以司法權制約行政壟斷權。

Strengthening legal governance of administrative monopoly is of vital significance for protecting fair market competition and improving economic operation efficiency. This is particularly true in China where great efforts have been made to promote socialist market economy.

Chapter V of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Anti-Monopoly Law") specially sets forth provisions on abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition. Therefore, it is generally accepted by the academic circle that administrative monopoly is a kind of monopoly strictly prohibited by law. in other words, administrative monopoly is illegal. However, administrative monopoly, which operates as a kind of public power, and especially as a kind of administrative power, has unnegligible value for protecting the interest of consumers and the public. That is, there is reason for the existence of administrative monopoly. How to coordinate the relationship between legality and reasonableness of administrative monopoly is the key issue to tackle in legal governance of administrative monopoly in China.

To coordinate the relationship between legality and reasonableness of administrative monopoly, it is necessary to learn objectively the state of separation between the legality and reasonableness of administrative monopoly. Therefore, from the perspective of separation between the legality and reasonableness of administrative monopoly, this article expounds its core themes after comprehensively analyzing the incomplete correspondence between the reasonable/unreasonable administrative monopoly and the legal/illegal administrative monopoly. This article consists of five chapters.

Chapter I, Rethinking on Administrative Monopoly. Administrative monopoly is a kind of monopoly established on public power. In essence, administrative monopoly operates as a kind of public power. As for its influence on social economy, administrative monopoly is reasonable in one aspect but unreasonable in the other aspect. From the empirical point of view, administrative monopoly is sometimes legal and sometimes illegal. The reasonableness of administrative monopoly is not complete corresponding to its legality. A reasonable administrative monopoly may not meet the requirements of the empirical method, while an unreasonable administrative monopoly may legally exist.

Chapter II, Basic Situation of Administrative Monopoly in China. Currently, administrative monopoly is mainly reflected by the domination of the Party and the government and is closely related to power. Specifically, it covers exclusive operation and monopoly of special commodities and services, sector monopoly, or regional monopoly. Administrative monopoly in China has a profound historical background and a close connection to the current economic management system. Administrative monopoly has a considerable impact on social and economic development in China. Negatively, it impedes free competition and impairs social benefits. Positively, it makes up for the ineffectiveness of the market and protects public interest and social justice.

Chapter III, Difficulties in and Solutions to Governance of Administrative Monopoly in China. Legal governance of administrative monopoly in China is confronted with many difficulties, including imperfect legislation, inefficient law enforcement, and incompetent judicial work. Legislation is the root of legal governance. To overcome the difficulties in governance of administrative monopoly in China, we have to, on the one hand, improve legislation and terminate sector interest, and on the other hand, strengthen the judicial work to safeguard the baseline and dignity of the rule of law.

Chapter IV, Defining the Reasonable Administrative Monopoly: Sticking to the Legislation Reservation Principle. Separation between the reasonableness and legality of administrative monopoly is in an actual state, but not an idealistic state. By following the legislation reservation principle, the consistency between the reasonableness and legality of administrative monopoly can be attained. Reasonable administrative monopoly shall only be stipulated by law, and any one not expressly stipulated by law shall be deemed unreasonable. The exemption of specific monopolies in the Anti-Monopoly Law does not work against the legislation reservation principle, but exemption in the Anti-Monopoly Law shall be restricted to a certain extent.

Chapter V, Control of Unreasonable Administrative Monopoly: Strengthening Judicial Examination. To control unreasonable administrative monopoly, it is necessary to strengthen judicial examination. On the one hand, it helps better determine the reasonableness and legality of administrative monopoly; and on the other hand, it helps achieve the unity of instrumental rationality and value rationality. Strengthening judicial examination covers the following aspects: (1) integrating provisions on administrative monopoly and determining the basis for judicial examination;(2) defining qualifications for a plaintiff and protecting the standing to sue of the victim; and (3) introducing the theory on administrative law relations and making innovations in judicial examination methods.

Based on the above discussions, this article draws the following conclusion: Reasonable administrative monopoly should be defined by law and by following the legislation reservation principle; unreasonable administrative monopoly should be restricted by judicial power through strengthened judicial examination.