Due to the lack of unified law concerning administrative compensation in China, related laws can be spotted only among scattered statutes, regulations, and ordinances or other forms of regulatory documents, rendering a chaos for the legal practice. The lagging scholastic studies, whose consensus is far yet to reach into, together with the immensely diversified administrative compensation types and various causes of action for relief due to administrative conducts, constitutes the reason for this mess. Though it is unfair to deny the patency of the progress in studies conducted by Chinese scholars, the unsolved issues outnumber the others. To start, the concept of administrative compensation, which, despite countless vital divergences, attracts most consensus, defines administrative compensation as the scheme designed to provide relief to the relative person to whom damages incur in the process of legal administrative actions. The author believes this is a narrow concept, which cannot generalize the categories of administrative compensation during the legislative practice. Two categories reveal in this context: first, the compensation due to the damages to individual during the process of legal administrative actions of public agency; second, that derives from the losses and costs individual spends to protect a public interest. The definition commonly recognized is not complete for covering only the first type and leaving aside the second, necessitating circumscribing anew. The generally accepted concept is not complete because of, as far as the author believes, the limits imputed by the perspective of dualism of state liability, focusing only the state liability raised in the situation where the state power infringes the citizens’ legal rights, therefore equaling the two categories of administrative compensation due respectively to legal administrative action and individual action. The issue of essence is to balance the public interest and individual interest. Individual shall be compensated in the situation where sacrifice has been made for the public interest, and the state shall make compensation representing the public interest. The reconstruction of the concept of administrative compensation shall reveal this balance of those two interests. The concept reconstruction cannot proceed without the guidance of theory. This article analyzes popular theories concerning administrative compensation, adopts the special sacrifice theory serving as a useful instrument to achieve the goal. On this basis, the author realized the reconstruction concept: administrative compensation refers to the scheme the state makes compensation to a citizen or an organization suffered special sacrifice for the sake of public interest based on human rights protection and the principle of equity. Additionally, another approach stanching in this article details the categories of administrative compensation, based on the dualism and the special sacrifice theory. Pointed by the analysis, the dualism is academically and practically correct and the reviewed conceptual scope of administrative compensation is complete.

我国现在尚未对行政补偿制度进行统一的立法，行政补偿的规定主要散落在 法律、法规、规章以及政策或规范性文件中，其法律依据显得非常的分散和凌乱。 之所以出现这种局面，一是因为我国对行政补偿理论研究起步晚，学界对行政补 偿的理论基础尚未达成共识；二是行政补偿类型种类多，具体补偿请求权多样化， 很难归类统一。 我国法学界对于行政补偿制度的研究，这些年取得了长足的进步，但是仍有 一些问题需要继续探讨和研究。对于行政补偿概念的定义，尽管学者们各有各的 说法，但是总体上没有太大分歧。通说概念认为行政补偿是行政主体合法行政行 为对行政相对人造成损失，由行政主体依法对行政相对人实行救济的制度。笔者 认为这是一个狭义的概念，不能概括我国立法实践中出现的行政补偿类型。我国 行政补偿的类型有两个：一个是国家对行政主体合法行使公权力对公民造成的损 失进行补偿；另一个是国家对个人、组织主动维护社会公共利益遭受的损失进行 补偿。通说概念的定义只局限在第一种补偿类型，并没有涵盖第二种补偿类型， 因而不够周延，需要重新构建。 通说概念之所以不周延，笔者认为主要是受国家责任二元论的研究视角束缚， 只注重追究行政权合法侵犯公民合法权益的国家责任，从而将行政补偿的概念等 同于国家合法侵害补偿的概念。行政补偿的本质是公共利益和个人利益的平衡， 个人为公共利益做出牺牲，国家应该代表公共利益来补偿个人的损失。行政补偿 概念的重构必须要体现两种利益平衡的本质。概念的重构离不开理论基础的指导。 笔者通过分析主流的行政补偿的理论基础，认为特别牺牲理论适合指导行政补偿 的概念重构。在此基础上，笔者实现了概念的重构：行政补偿是指公民或组织因 为公共利益的缘故遭受特别牺牲，国家基于人权保障和公平原则予以补偿的制度。 除此之外，本文的另一个研究目的就是在行政补偿类型两分的基础上，在特 别牺牲理论的指导下，对每个大类的行政补偿进行具体细化，进一步佐证行政补 偿类型两分的正确性，同时也可以检验新概念的周延性。