司法审查标准作为行政诉讼的核心问题，是指人民法院对被诉行政行为进行审查判断和作出裁判时所遵循的各类准则的统称。中国法院在司法审查领域不断进行着规则创制即“法院造法”，而在中国司法审查标准规则创制进程中，逐步形成了“合法性标准”、“合理性标准”、“程序公正标准”之三元标准体系。

本命题的提出，基于这样一个现实疑问：在中国司法审查制度框架下，法官（法院）可以创制规则吗？“通过判决发展法律”。二十多年前，学界既对“田永案”等展开深入探讨，使法官们进一步看清判决的价值。“法院如何发展行政法”。十多年前，学者对“法官造法”的论述令人耳目一新，而“靳学英案”、“种子案”等禁止“法官造法”的极端经历却对法院影响深刻。但是，伴随着法治的进步，中国司法审查制度与世界同频共振现象日益凸显。从世界范围看，绝大多数国家的法院均有形式各异、范围有别的司法规则创制权，司法审查的功能定位尤其呼唤规则创制，中国概不例外。具体到司法审查标准领域，中国法院是不是在创制规则？如何创制规制？规制创制的规律如何？本文以司法审查标准典型案例和高法案例为观察样本（仅所附 14 个表格即涉及案例数量 11977起，其中列明案号者 773 起），通过对中国司法审查标准规则创制的实践总结，试图对此作出回答。

政法模式是探讨中国司法审查标准的政制语境。在政法模式框架下，第一，“合法性标准”代表了立法构造与司法诠释。从《行政诉讼法》（1989）第五条的立法选择和构造，到司法解释及司法判例的遥相呼应，以“事实证据”、“法律适用”、“超越职权”等为主要情形的审查标准体系脱颖而出，“确认违法”、“行政不作为”、“行政规范性文件附带审查”情形亦应纳入“合法性审查标准”体系。本文将“法律适用”、“确认违法”、“附带审查”作为研究重点。第二，“合理性标准”反映了学理创新与现实契合。“合理性标准”在学理探讨和理论创新的推动下逐步形成独立的司法审查标准体系。理论创新与司法现实相契合，以“滥用职权”、“显失公正”为起点，以“明显不当”为标杆，“合理性司法审查标准”体系得以建立。第三，“程序公正标准”体现了传统突破与边界拓展。严格说来，《行政诉讼法》（1989）第五十四条“违反法定程序”情形属于“合法性标准”范畴，但是司法实践不仅以此为法律依据实现了对“重实体轻程序”政法传统的突破，而且进一步以“正当程序”为武器，拓展了程序公正司法审查标准的边界，形成了“法定程序+正当程序”的完整体系。没有《行政诉讼法》（1989）“法定程序”的法律条文，就没有中国程序正义的合法性基础；没有司法实践对“正当程序”的探索和应用，就难以在中国形成完整的“程序公正司法审查标准”体系。

另外，域外规则移植是法官“熨平法律织物皱折”的难得武器，并对中国司法审查标准体系构建影响至深。“信赖保护”、“比例原则”、“程序正义”三者，恰好代表了“合法性标准”、“合理性标准”、“程序公正标准”领域的域外规则移植典范。

中国司法审查标准规则创制走出了一条“法院造法”的中国路径，呈现出司法审查的能动性、司法审查移植现象和司法审查案例制度规范化等既有特征和发展趋向。司法审查能动性集中体现于“三元标准”体系的司法构建，信赖保护、比例原则、程序正义等域外规则的司法运用为司法审查移植现象谱写了最美的注脚，司法审查案例制度规范化则是实现司法治理体系和治理能力现代化的应有之义。中国司法规则创制向来以司法解释为主要载体。但是，《立法法》（2015）第 104 条为“造法性司法解释”赫然关上了一扇窗。因此应该打开指导性案例制度的方法之门，凸显其合法性、正当性、权威性、传承性之规则创制价值。从司法解释规则创制为主体走向指导性案例规则创制为主体，强化司法审查标准规则创制功能，率先在司法审查领域试行判例制度，进而带动中国判例制度体系的全面创建和发展，这是中国诉讼制度迈向司法结构主义的最佳路径选择。

本文的理论贡献在于：填补中国法院司法审查标准规则创制研究缺项，提炼中国法院司法审查标准规则创制规律，通过比较研究总结中国法院司法审查标准规则创制的本土特色。研究发现，中国法院在司法审查领域不断进行规则创制即“法院造法”；“法院造法”的规律是将规则创制诉诸集体主义，前期以司法解释为主要载体，后期以指导性案例辅之以《公报》案例等为主要形式；典型案例和高法案例的规则创制，一般表现为“对成文法、司法解释的细化和增强”以及“突破现有成文法和司法解释的框架”两种类型，二者在中国现行司法体制下都应被视为司法审查标准规则创制的实践样态。

Judicial review standard, as the core issue of administrative litigation, refers to all kinds of principles that the people's court follows when reviewing and judging the prosecuted administrative act and making a judgment. Chinese courts are constantly creating rules in the field of judicial review, that is, "court-made law". Besides, in the process of creating standard rules for judicial review in China, a standard ternary system of "legality standard", "rationality standard", and "procedural justice standard" has been gradually formed.

This proposition is based on a realistic question: Can judges (courts) create rules under the framework of the judicial review system in China? "Developing the law through judgments." More than twenty years ago, the legal community had in-depth discussions on the "Tian Yong case" and others, enabling the judges to realize the judgment's value further. "How the courts develop administrative law." Scholars' discussion of "judge-made law" was refreshing more than a decade ago. In contrast, the extreme experience of prohibiting "judge-made law", such as the "Jin Xueying case", the "seed case" and so on, have had a profound impact on the courts. However, with the advancement of the rule of law, the phenomenon that China's judicial review system keeps pace with the world has become increasingly prominent. From a worldwide perspective, the courts in most countries have the right to create judicial rules in different forms and scopes. The functional positioning of judicial review calls for the creation of rules in particular, and China is no exception. Specifically, in terms of judicial review standards, are Chinese courts creating rules? How to create regulations? What is the law of regulation creation? Taking typical cases of judicial review standards and guiding cases of the Supreme People's Court as samples (Only 14 forms are attached that involve 11,977 cases, of which 773 cases are listed with case numbers), this paper attempts to answer these questions by summarizing the practice of creating standard rules for judicial review in China.

The political and legal model is the political context to explore China's judicial review standards. Under the framework of the political and legal model, first, the "legality standard" represents legislative structure and judicial interpretation. From the legislative choice and structure of Article 5, Administrative Litigation Law (1989) to judicial interpretations and judicial precedents, the review standard system with "factual evidence", "application of law", and "exceeding authority" as the main situations stands out. Circumstances of "confirmation of illegality", "administrative omissions", and "administrative normative documents collateral review" should also be included in the "legality review standard" system. This article focuses on "application of law", "confirmation of illegality", and "incidental review". Second, the "rationality standard" reflects that the theoretical innovation is in line with reality. The "rationality standard" gradually form an independent judicial review standard system driven by academic discussion and theoretical innovation. Theoretical innovation is consistent with judicial reality, starting with "abuse of power" and "obvious unfairness", and "obviously improper" as the benchmark, the "rationality judicial review standard" system is established. Third, the "procedural fairness standard" embodies the traditional breakthrough and boundary expansion. Strictly speaking, the "violation of legal procedures" in Article 54, Administrative Litigation Law (1989) belong to the category of "legality standard". However, judicial practice not only uses this as a legal basis to achieve a breakthrough in the political and legal tradition of "emphasizing entities over procedures", and further using "due process" as a weapon to expand the boundaries of procedural fair judicial review standards, forming a integrated "legal produce + due produce" system. Without the legal provisions of "Statutory Procedure" in Administrative Litigation Law (1989), there would be no legal basis for Chinese procedural justice. Without the exploration and application of "due process" in judicial practice, it would be difficult to form a complete "Procedural fairness standard of judicial review" in China.

In addition, the transplantation of extraterritorial rules is a rare weapon for judges to "fill vacancies in legal provisions", which has a profound impact on the construction of China's judicial review standard system. "Reliance protection", "proportionality principle", and "procedural justice" represent a model of transplantation of extraterritorial rules in the fields of "legality standard", "rationality standard" and "procedural fairness standard".

The creation for standard rules of judicial review in China has taken a Chinese path of "court-made law", presenting established features and development trends such as the dynamism of judicial review, the phenomenon of judicial review transplantation and the standardization of the judicial review case system. Judicial review activism is embodied in the judicial construction of the "three-element standard" system. The judicial application of extraterritorial rules, such as procedural justice, trust protection and proportionality principle, provides the most typical examples for the judicial review transplant doctrine. The standardization of the judicial review case system is the proper way to realize the modernization of the judicial governance system and governance capacity. The creation of judicial rules in China has always taken judicial interpretation as the main carrier. However, Article 104, Legislation Law (2015) abruptly closes a window for "legislative judicial interpretation". Therefore, the method of guiding case system should be opened to highlight the value of its legality, legitimacy, authority, and inheritance. From the creation of judicial interpretation rules to the creation of guiding case rules as the principal part, strengthening the function of creating judicial review standard rules, and taking the lead in the trial of the judicial precedent system in the field of judicial review, which in turn drives the establishment of the Chinese precedent system as a whole. This is the best path for China's litigation system to move towards judicial structuralism.

The theoretical contribution of this paper is to fill the missing items in the study of the creation for standard rules of judicial review in Chinese courts, to refine the laws of the creation for this standard rules, and to summarize the local characteristics of the creation for this standard rules through comparative studies. The study found that Chinese courts have been constantly creating rules in the field of judicial review, i.e., "court-made law"; the pattern of "court-made law" is to resort to collectivism in rule creation, with judicial interpretation as the main vehicle in the early stage, and guiding cases supplemented by "bulletins" in the later stage as the main form. The creation of rules in typical cases and high-law cases is generally manifested in two types: "refinement and enhancement of statutory laws and judicial interpretations" and "breakthrough of the existing statutory law and judicial interpretation framework", both of which should be considered as practical models for the creation of standard rules of judicial review under the current Chinese judicial system.