- 法学院－已发表论文 
我国实定法从未以某种一般性标准统合行政诉讼原告资格的所有情形。当前理论界和实务界倾向于宽泛地理解“利害关系”标准的适用范围，但将该标准适用于某些类型的案件，颇有错位之感，且易使该标准的解释走向混乱。从当前实定法出发，应将行政诉讼原告资格区分为三个层次，即行政相对人的原告资格、行政行为相关人的原告资格以及基于客观诉讼契机的特殊情形。行政相对人通常具有原告资格，但对于不履行法定职责的案件，应区分不同情况；行政行为相关人的原告资格可以以利害关系标准为基石，借助保护规范理论予以判断；原告资格转移、行政公益诉讼以及受害人诉讼，则更适于作为客观诉讼加以把握，但对于何种案件属于受害人诉讼的认定不应过于宽泛。The statutory law in China has never consolidated all the circumstances of the plaintiff qualification in administrative litigation by a general standard. At present, the applicable scope of the ＂in- terests＂ criterion tends to be broadly understood both in theory and in practice. Nevertheless, it is quite dislocated to apply such criterion to some types of cases, and the broad understanding will lead the inter- pretation of such criterion to chaos. From the current statutory law perspective, the plaintiff qualification in administrative litigation should be comprehended from three levels, that is, the qualification of admin- istrative counterparts, the qualification of related parties of administrative actions, and some special situ- ations based on the mechanism of objective litigation. Although administrative counterparts are usually qualified to sue, for the cases of non--performance of statutory duties, courts should differentiate be- tween situations due to judicial policy. The qualification of related parties of administrative actions should be judged via the theory of protective norms based on the criterion of interest. The transfer of the plaintiff qualification, administrative litigation about public interests, and victim litigation are more suitable for comprehending as objective litigation. Still, the identification of the scope of victim litigation should not be unduly broad.