Abstract: According to prevailing international practice, maritime accident investigation reports should not be used as evidence in subsequent judicial proceedings, and the corresponding investigative conclusions do not affect the civil rights of involved parties. The classification of a maritime accident investigation report as a specific type of administrative act does not determine whether its conclusions are justiciable. The new version of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China treats investigative conclusions as evidence in the resolution of accident-related disputes, thereby negating any assertion that such conclusions are without administrative justiciability. In Chinese judicial practice, investigation reports issued by government agencies are often granted considerable evidentiary weight, which in turn prevents parties from challenging the public-law illegality of these conclusions during civil proceedings. It is therefore essential to afford parties the right to raise such challenges under public law. Although including these conclusions within the scope of administrative litigation may lead to issues such as inconsistent standards of review, potential delays in civil dispute resolution, and questions about how to handle withdrawn investigative conclusions, these concerns can be addressed through legal interpretation, regulatory reform, and a shift in judicial perspective.

Keywords: Waterborne accident investigation; Justiciable administrative acts; Maritime Traffic Safety Law

I. Introduction

Investigating waterborne traffic accidents, identifying their causes, and determining the types and degrees of liability involved—these are all essential functions of maritime administrative authorities in the lawful performance of their duties. These authorities are responsible for managing maritime traffic and ensuring the safety of vessels, facilities, and life and property at sea. With duties come powers, and in exercising these powers, maritime administrative authorities inevitably influence the allocation of rights and obligations among the parties to an accident. They may even alter the legal interests and positions of these parties through administrative powers. Since powers and obligations are inherently interrelated, the potential for abuse of power and procedural violations by maritime administrative bodies must also be acknowledged. Thus, it is both reasonable and necessary to subject the liability determinations made by such authorities to judicial regulation. In nature, the investigative conclusions of waterborne traffic accidents are not substantively different from those of road traffic accidents. However, the latter are explicitly excluded from judicial review. Under the current judicial policy framework, a departure from past practice has emerged: the conclusions of waterborne traffic accident investigations are now deemed justiciable within the scope of administrative litigation. In handling such cases, maritime courts should adhere to the principle of legality in reviewing administrative actions, while also taking into account considerations of reasonableness, thereby showing appropriate deference to the expertise of administrative agencies within their specialized fields.

Terms such as "Waterborne Traffic Accident Investigation Report," "Waterborne Traffic Accident Investigation Conclusion," and "Document of Waterborne Accident Liability Determination" often appear in various contexts, but they are essentially equivalent in substance.[1] The maritime administrative authority's determination of liability is typically embodied in documents such as the waterborne traffic accident investigation report or its variant, the investigation conclusion (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "investigation report").[2] Among these, the investigation report covers the widest range of content, while the document of liability determination contains the most limited scope. Regardless of format, the final result is a determination of the degree of liability for each party involved. The primary difference lies in the investigation report's additional emphasis on broader safety management, rule-making, and accident prevention. The new version of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "New Maritime Safety Law") stipulates that investigation reports are prepared by accident investigation teams organized by maritime authorities, while the document of accident liability determination must be issued by those authorities within fifteen working days of receiving the investigation report. The New Maritime Safety Law thus clearly distinguishes between the two. However, from the perspective of determining liability for involved parties, this distinction is largely formal rather than substantive. In terms of administrative justiciability, because the determination of liability is primarily based on the investigation report, any administrative litigation concerning the former necessarily entails judicial review of the latter. For the sake of consistency, this paper adopts the term "investigation report" throughout the discussion.

II. The Role of Investigation Reports in Judicial Proceedings in Various Jurisdictions and China's Approach

In the United Kingdom, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) is responsible for investigating maritime accidents occurring within UK waters and is authorized under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to issue relevant investigation reports. The UK Commercial Court ruled that reports issued by the MAIB are inadmissible as evidence as to liability in judicial proceedings.[3] This ruling was based on amendments introduced by the Merchant Shipping Act 2005, which explicitly states that accident reports shall be inadmissible as evidence when liability is being determined in judicial proceedings. The presiding judge in that case further explained that the reason such reports are inadmissible is because the MAIB's primary function is to enhance maritime safety, not to assign blame. If such reports were admissible in court, parties involved in future incidents would be less likely to cooperate with the maritime investigation authority and provide truthful information during investigations.

In the United States, the Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are authorized under different statutes to investigate waterborne traffic accidents and issue corresponding reports. U.S. law similarly holds that factual findings, opinions, and conclusions in such reports are inadmissible as evidence in both civil and administrative proceedings. However, certain exceptions are provided—documents, photographs, and other attachments included in the report may be admitted as evidence, as long as they are not conclusive statements.[4] According to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c), government agency reports fall under hearsay and are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted.[5]

The treatment of waterborne accident investigation reports in the aforementioned countries aligns with prevailing international norms. For instance, Rule 25.4 of the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents stipulates: "Where it is permitted by the national laws of the State preparing the marine safety investigation report, the draft and final report should be prevented from being admissible in evidence in proceedings related to the marine casualty or marine incident that may lead to disciplinary measures, criminal conviction or the determination of civil liability." The European Union has adopted similar provisions.[6] As international conventions or domestic laws explicitly exclude liability determinations in investigation reports from being directly admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings, such reports have little substantive impact on the legal rights of the parties. The actual impact on parties' rights typically occurs in subsequent administrative or judicial processes.

China has largely followed this international approach. Both the 1983 and the 2016 versions of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China did not provide for the use of administrative investigation findings as judicial evidence. However, in judicial practice, the Civil Tribunal IV of the Supreme People's Court and the Maritime Safety Administration of China jointly issued the Guiding Opinions on Regulating Maritime Accident Investigations and the Adjudication of Maritime Cases in 2006. This document expressly stated that "maritime accident investigation reports and their conclusions may be used as evidence in maritime court proceedings, unless there is sufficient factual evidence and legal reasoning to rebut them." As a result, maritime courts generally accept liability determinations in investigation reports as a rule, with exceptions being rare. In civil judgments issued by maritime courts, the reasoning sections often treat the reports as official documents produced by administrative authorities in the exercise of their statutory powers, and therefore grant them high probative value. Unless parties present strong rebuttal evidence, courts typically adopt the conclusions of the investigation reports.[7] Even in cases where courts do not directly admit such reports as evidence, they often rely on them as key factual sources, using their content to reconstruct the course of events, analyze causes, and ultimately determine liability.[8] These reports are presumed to have substantive evidentiary weight and to reflect the truth; if a party disputes their content, they must present contrary evidence to overcome the presumption of authenticity.[9] In practice, civil litigants face significant difficulties in overturning the findings in such reports, and successful challenges are exceedingly rare.[10] In the authors' view, in order to resolve the predicament where litigants harbor doubts about the contents of an investigation report but have no effective procedural avenue to contest it—while their rights and obligations are still determined based on the report—it is necessary to provide them with a lawful and reasonable remedy.

III. Normative and Empirical Analysis of the Justiciability of Investigation Reports

All entities engaged in production and business operations bear the obligation to prevent and reduce work safety incidents. According to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Work Safety, in addition to general safety obligations under the law, specific laws and administrative regulations provide targeted rules for areas such as fire safety, road traffic safety, waterborne traffic safety, civil aviation safety, nuclear and radiation safety, and the safety of special equipment. The investigation and handling of accidents by administrative authorities in these domains invariably have a substantive impact on the rights and obligations of involved parties, and thus fall within the scope of administrative litigation. However, in practice, the justiciability of such accident investigation conclusions is inconsistently addressed. 

(i) Theoretical Basis: Nature of the Act Should Not Bar Administrative Justiciability

Administrative litigation may be initiated in people's courts against administrative acts that infringe upon a party's lawful rights and interests, unless otherwise stipulated by law.[11] Whether an investigation report constitutes an administrative act, and if so, what type of administrative act it is, and whether it infringes upon the legal rights and interests of a party, directly determines whether it falls within the scope of justiciable administrative cases as defined in Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Scholars hold varying views on the nature of investigation reports, categorizing them as administrative confirmatory acts, technical appraisals, quasi-administrative acts, or administrative factual acts.[12] Each viewpoint has its own merit but also clear limitations. Despite the differences, most scholars acknowledge that an investigation report constitutes a form of administrative act. In practice, investigation reports meet the defining elements of an administrative act, that is, they are actions taken by an administrative body in the exercise of its administrative authority during the course of administrative management.[13] The investigation of waterborne traffic accidents is a form of administrative management and enforcement, which must be grounded in legal authority and executed in accordance with law.[14] Some scholars argue that investigation reports are merely technical appraisals conducted by maritime authorities and do not directly affect the rights and obligations of parties. Nonetheless, such reports often serve as important grounds for administrative penalties, civil liability, or even criminal prosecution against involved parties.[15] Others classify them as quasi-administrative acts or intermediate acts, characterizing them as procedurally incomplete or provisional.[16] Except for the view that treats technical appraisals as non-justiciable, the mainstream consensus holds that quasi-administrative or factual administrative acts become justiciable when they materially affect a party's rights.[17] It is also worth noting that certain perspectives on administrative technical appraisals argue that whether an administrative act carries direct and concrete legal effect depends on legislation, legal interpretation, and judicial practice.[18] Therefore, regardless of how waterborne accident investigation acts are categorized, whether as confirmatory, technical, or quasi-administrative, they retain the potential to be subject to administrative litigation.

(ii) Legal Basis: The Evidentiary Nature of a Document Does Not Preclude Justiciability

The question of whether determinations of liability in road traffic accidents fall within the scope of administrative litigation was answered in the negative by the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in reply [Fa Gong Ban Fu Zi (2005)]. The rationale was that Article 73 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that such determinations serve as evidence in the handling of traffic accident cases, and therefore should not be subject to litigation. This raises the key issue: why does the transformation of an administrative act into "evidence" render it non-justiciable in administrative litigation? The argument is that since a liability determination in a traffic accident is used as evidence—and evidence, before being admitted, does not have a direct impact on the rights and obligations of parties—it lacks the immediate legal effect necessary for justiciability.[19] Investigation reports are often characterized as preparatory, intermediate, or preliminary administrative acts. These acts may indirectly affect the parties' rights and obligations,[20] primarily by serving as supporting material in follow-up administrative penalties, criminal prosecutions, or civil compensation claims. In such proceedings, the parties' legal status is ultimately determined. Although this line of reasoning appears logical, it does not withstand deeper scrutiny. First, specific administrative acts can serve dual functions, as the object of administrative litigation and as evidence in civil, criminal, or other administrative proceedings.[21] The use of administrative acts as evidence in litigation is a common legal phenomenon. Administrative penalties or confirmations often support one party's claims. Second, while an investigation report may be rebuttable as evidence, civil litigation offers no effective remedy for addressing serious flaws in administrative procedures. Therefore, granting parties the right to challenge such administrative acts under public law is both necessary and reasonable. Finally, whether road traffic accident determinations are subject to administrative litigation is a matter of judicial policy. The Supreme People's Court has issued policy guidance that administrative cases regarding traffic accident liability determination should not be accepted for now. However, the Supreme People's Court has not issued any binding judicial interpretation or theoretical explanation on this matter.[22] In contrast, the Civil Tribunal IV of the Supreme People's Court, in its 2019 Reply to the Request from the Maritime Safety Administration of the Ministry of Transport Regarding the Justiciability of Maritime Investigation Conclusions [Min Si (2019) No. 15], stated that maritime investigation conclusions both confirm facts and allocate rights and obligations among parties, thereby substantively affecting the legal interests of administrative counterparts. As such, these conclusions should not be barred from being challenged in administrative litigation. This response implicitly acknowledges that maritime investigation conclusions do impact the rights of involved parties.

Article 85 of the New Maritime Traffic Safety Law explicitly designates the document of accident liability determination as evidence for handling maritime traffic accidents. The intent for amending the Maritime Traffic Safety Law was to align with the Road Traffic Safety Law, thus further codifying the evidentiary status of such documents. Once this standard is applied, maritime accident determinations would once again be excluded from administrative litigation—reverting to earlier judicial practice.[23] However, there is no essential difference in the factual and legal elements underlying liability determinations in road traffic accidents versus waterborne traffic accidents. Nevertheless, the issue of justiciability need not be treated identically. Firstly, in quantitative terms, road traffic accidents vastly outnumber waterborne accidents. Allowing mass administrative litigation over road accident determinations would significantly increase judicial workload and could undermine the efficient resolution of civil cases. Secondly, waterborne traffic accidents often involve foreign elements. When investigation reports affect parties' rights, the need for judicial review aligns with international norms, especially since administrative litigation emphasizes legality review, which ensures that investigative procedures are subject to fair adjudication. Thirdly, waterborne accident determinations are highly specialized and encompass a broad range of accident types. This technical complexity further justifies the need for judicial oversight of investigative procedures. Lastly, whether liability findings in road traffic accidents can be litigated is ultimately a matter of current judicial policies and societal considerations. Future reforms may expand the scope of review to better protect parties' rights comprehensively.

(iii) Practical Grounds: Real Impact on the Rights of Administrative Counterparts

According to the "ripeness doctrine," administrative law establishes a boundary for when an administrative counterpart may seek judicial review, namely, when the administrative act has actually infringed upon the party's rights or is about to cause such infringement (i.e., the matter is ripe for adjudication).[24] During the course of accident investigations, various legal violations often come to light. Once the causes and liabilities are identified, administrative penalties may be imposed depending on the severity of the negligence that led to the maritime accident.[25] The affected parties may then initiate administrative litigation against the final administrative disposition, at which point the investigation report is absorbed into a ripe and conclusive administrative decision and thus deemed procedural or intermediate in nature, lacking independent external legal effect. The mere act of attributing liability or determining the cause of an accident does not, by itself, trigger the ripeness needed for the administrative counterpart's rights to be considered legally infringed under administrative law. In judicial practice, courts often conduct a comprehensive review of the legality of preliminary administrative acts during the review of final decisions. The prevailing "absorption theory" in legal scholarship supports this approach: preliminary and subsequent administrative acts can be consolidated into a single legal action and reviewed together by the court.[26]

In addition to providing a basis for administrative penalties, investigation reports also serve to confirm the occurrence of accidents and assess liability. From the standpoint of the administrative counterpart, although the administrative penalty may not immediately infringe upon their rights, the determination of liability may directly influence their subsequent civil rights and obligations. Some argue that in civil cases, courts independently assess the admissibility and probative value of all evidence in accordance with the rules of evidence, choosing to adopt, reference, or dismiss elements of the investigation report accordingly. Only a final, enforceable civil judgment determines the parties' legal rights and obligations. However, the authors contend that, even setting aside the fact that most jurisdictions do not recognize investigation reports as admissible evidence in court, while civil courts may reject the contents of such reports based on evidentiary rules, this rejection occurs only within the civil adjudication process, not through an administrative proceeding that formally examines the legality of the administrative act itself. Litigants who wish to challenge investigation reports in civil litigation bear the primary burden of proof and are often constrained by limited access to material evidence, relying heavily on oral testimony or personal statements. In contrast, in administrative litigation, the burden of proof lies with the administrative agency, which must fully demonstrate the legality and rationality of the evidence presented during the investigative process. Judicial review of investigation reports via administrative litigation ensures that the investigative process is objective and fair, and prevents civil courts from blindly accepting the conclusions of such reports simply because the claimant lacks sufficient evidence to refute them. Moreover, if the administrative body has committed serious legal violations, granting parties the right to bring administrative lawsuits is essential to upholding citizens' constitutional rights to petition and lodge complaints.

(iv) Requirements of Foreign Relations

Although China has not opened its coastal and inland shipping routes to foreign access, foreign-owned or operated vessels may enter Chinese territorial waters and designated ports through international cargo transport. When foreign vessels are involved in maritime accidents within Chinese waters, China's maritime administrative authorities have the sovereign right to investigate such incidents. In addition, Article 94(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that the flag State and the other State shall cooperate in the conduct of any inquiry held by that other State into any such marine casualty or incident of navigation. Maritime transport is classified by the WTO Statistics and Information Services Division as a sector within international trade in services. According to items 1 and 2 of Article 2(D) headed "Judicial Review" of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization, China shall establish, or designate, and maintain tribunals, contact points and procedures for the prompt review of all administrative actions relating to the implementation of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application referred to in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994. Review procedures shall include the opportunity for appeal, without penalty, by individuals or enterprises affected by any administrative action subject to review. If the initial right of appeal is to an administrative body, there shall in all cases be the opportunity to choose to appeal the decision to a judicial body. As previously discussed, investigation reports constitute administrative acts that affect the rights and interests of parties. Therefore, they should, in accordance with WTO requirements, be subject to judicial review.

IV. Challenges and Response Strategies Regarding the Justiciability of Investigation Reports

Bringing investigation reports within the scope of administrative litigation will inevitably break through the traditional boundaries of adjudication and create a certain degree of disruption to maritime judicial proceedings. The only effective response is to proactively adapt and shift entrenched perspectives in order to harmonize administrative lawsuits concerning investigation reports with subsequent maritime litigation procedures.

(i) Divergent Standards of Review

Judicial intervention in administrative acts varies in both scope and intensity depending on the context. One of the foundational principles of modern rule of law is the doctrine of limited judicial review over administrative decisions. This principle limits court review, particularly in cases involving administrative discretion or technically specialized matters, as not all administrative actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. As ordinary court judges may lack the deep specialized expertise of administrative authorities, it is not always the case that judicial decisions will be more reasonable than those made by administrative professionals.[27] Maritime court judges, however, generally possess greater expertise in maritime law than their counterparts in ordinary courts. This specialization may afford them a comparative advantage when reviewing maritime administrative acts. Judicial review in such cases could follow two main approaches: one perspective holds that maritime courts, leveraging their expertise, should conduct comprehensive reviews of investigation reports; another suggests that judgments within the report, especially factual determinations, fall within the discretionary powers of administrative authorities, and that judicial review should be limited to whether lawful procedures were followed by administrative authorities. This latter approach mirrors the practice in road traffic accident determinations, where assessments by public security authorities regarding proportional fault between pedestrians and vehicles are treated as factual findings and generally not subject to judicial review.[28]

The authors argue that judicial review of maritime accident investigation reports should be conducted under the same principles that apply to administrative acts in general, as established by the Administrative Procedure Law. That is, courts should assess both the legality and reasonableness of the act. Legality and reasonableness exist on the same spectrum. Reasonableness is in itself an aspect of legality. When unreasonable conduct exceeds the boundaries of what legality can tolerate, it effectively becomes unlawful. Specifically, from the perspective of legality, courts should examine whether the administrative authority collected, assessed, and adopted evidence concerning the incident in accordance with legal procedures. They should determine whether on-site inspections, interviews, and investigative steps were thorough or contained material omissions. From the perspective of reasonableness, in addition to reviewing the above factors for obvious unreasonableness, emphasis should be placed on evaluating the analysis of the accident's cause, whether the assessment of causal force and degree of fault is clearly biased, and whether the proportional attributions of liability deviate from common-sense expectations. Throughout the review process, courts should adopt a deferential stance toward technical determinations made by administrative authorities. These include judgments based on specialized instruments such as voyage data recorders (VDRs), VHF communication logs, and professional interpretation of collision evidence like paint traces or structural damage, as well as analyses of the characteristics of fleeing vessels. Such determinations fall within the administrative authority's technical domain and should not be excessively second-guessed by judicial bodies.

(ii) Suspension of Civil Proceedings May Delay Timely Remedies for Parties

One frequently cited reason against allowing maritime accident investigation reports to be subject to administrative litigation is the concern that compensation for personal injury or property damage caused by maritime accidents, often based on the report's apportionment of liability, may be delayed. If an investigation report is potentially subject to revocation through administrative litigation, civil proceedings may be suspended, leaving the parties' rights and obligations unresolved for an extended period.

The authors contend that this view is not entirely accurate. Civil proceedings do not necessarily fall within the scope of Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Law, which requires the outcome of an administrative case to serve as the basis for civil adjudication. Civil litigation is based on the investigation report as it stands, not on the outcome of administrative litigation. As previously noted, an investigation report is an administrative act. Once issued, an administrative act is binding and has a legal effect on both the administrative authority and the administrative counterpart. Upon its formation (except in cases of nullity), the administrative act has formal binding force; however, it only acquires substantive binding force once it survives judicial review or confirmation once the timeframe for administrative reconsideration or litigation has lapsed. From a judicial perspective, administrative acts with merely formal binding force should not serve as the direct basis for judicial judgments. Only those with substantive binding force may be relied upon for judicial decisions. In civil litigation, administrative acts with merely formal effect are generally inadmissible as direct grounds for judicial judgments. Only under specific circumstances may such formally effective administrative acts serve as the foundation for civil judgments. For example, pursuant to Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases (Fa Shi [2001] No. 21), a patent grant, despite being at the stage of formal rather than substantive effectiveness, may be relied upon in civil adjudication. In such cases, recognizing the binding effect of an administrative act at the formal stage serves as a pragmatic measure to prevent undue delay in civil proceedings and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of civil plaintiffs.[29] By the same reasoning, allowing maritime accident investigation reports with formal binding force to serve as the basis for civil judgments can effectively avoid delays that would otherwise result from awaiting their acquisition of substantive binding force.

If an investigation report is later overturned in administrative litigation, this does not necessarily affect an already effective civil judgment. Only where the report contains significant flaws in its key factual findings or conclusions on liability, and the maritime administrative authority subsequently issues a revised report that alters the original allocation of rights and responsibilities, will a corresponding adjustment in the civil case be warranted. Regardless of how many investigation reports may ultimately be subject to negative judicial review in administrative proceedings, even if a small number require revision, the people's courts are fully empowered under Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Law to reopen civil cases if the original judgment is found to be erroneous. Additionally, under Article 200 of the same law, a party may apply for retrial if the basic facts on which the original judgment was based lack evidentiary support. In such cases, the need for retrial arises not from judicial error or misconduct, but from the administrative authority's re-evaluation of a key piece of evidence. The original ruling cannot be classified as a wrongful judgment; rather, the retrial ensures the realization of substantive justice. Moreover, the parallel adjudication of civil and administrative cases—or the rendering of a civil judgment prior to the conclusion of the administrative case—can, in turn, help promote the fair resolution of the administrative proceeding. This is because, in civil litigation, parties may present evidence to challenge the contents of the investigation report, and the civil judge's assessment of such evidence may influence, to some extent, the administrative judge's evaluation and conviction regarding the same facts.

On the other hand, if a civil case concludes through mediation, even a later annulment of the investigation report through administrative litigation would not permit a party to request retrial of the mediated settlement. Under Article 201 of the Civil Procedure Law, retrial is only permissible if the mediation process violated the principle of voluntariness or if the agreement's content is unlawful. The parties who agree to concede their rights in a mediation agreement do so based on their comprehensive assessment of factors such as the cause of the accident, the contents of the investigation report, and the potential costs of litigation. In general, such agreements do not involve the protection of illegal interests, infringement of third-party rights, or violations of the law. Therefore, even if the investigation report's conclusions on liability are subsequently revised, this does not invalidate the legal effect of a mediation agreement entered into voluntarily by the parties.

(iii) Handling of Administrative Acts After Revocation

Depending on the nature of the act and the type of judgment rendered in administrative litigation, the outcomes of administrative litigation concerning investigation reports generally fall into three categories: full dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, revocation of the administrative act, or a judicial declaration that the act was unlawful or void. According to Article 74 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the administrative act must be declared unlawful when a petty violation of the statutory procedures occurs during an accident investigation that does not substantially affect the parties' rights, or when the revocation will cause any significant damage to the national interest or public interest. Such a finding does not substantively alter the conclusions of the investigation report. However, if the court either revokes the administrative act or declares it void, the maritime administrative authority must issue a new investigation report. In practice, this presents challenges: the accident scene may no longer exist, and witnesses may be unable to accurately recall events. These factors complicate the re-investigation process. The authors believe such concerns are largely unwarranted. When a court revokes an investigation report, it is usually for one of two reasons: (1) the existing evidence clearly indicates that the liability determination was manifestly inappropriate; or (2) the key facts are unclear due to insufficient evidence. In cases involving procedural violations, abuse of authority, or misapplication of laws or regulations, revocation of the administrative act may occur, but the substantive conclusions of the investigation report may remain unaffected. In the first scenario, the administrative authority can reissue the report based on the existing evidence. Since investigation reports possess quasi-judicial characteristics and serve to attribute degrees of liability among parties, even if an investigation report is revoked due to insufficient evidence, the administrative body must, using available evidence and its professional expertise and discretion, issue a revised report. Therefore, revoking an investigation report does not—and should not—impede the normal execution of administrative duties.

V. Conclusion

The administrative justiciability of investigation reports is not negated merely because the law designates such reports as admissible evidence in waterborne accident proceedings. Rather, their evidentiary weight increases, and they are frequently used as the primary basis for the attribution of civil liability. With the New Maritime Traffic Safety Law explicitly confirming the evidentiary role of investigation reports, this trend becomes even more pronounced. Thus, it is essential to grant parties the right to challenge these administrative acts under the framework of administrative litigation. Unless China reforms its judicial practice to follow the example of other jurisdictions—prohibiting the use of investigation reports as civil evidence and instead relying entirely on parties' own presentation and cross-examination of evidence in court—the current system must ensure adequate public law remedies. Moreover, allowing investigation reports to fall within the scope of administrative litigation does not hinder civil proceedings. On the contrary, it enhances the protection of parties' legal rights in a more comprehensive and balanced manner.

VI. Authors

Shen Han, Luo Zheng, Guangzhou Maritime Court

VII. References

[1] Wang Jun, Research on the Administrative Justiciability of Liability Determinations in Waterborne Traffic Accidents, Master's Thesis, Law Degree, Dalian Maritime University, 2020.

[2] Guo Feng, "On the Concept of Liability in Waterborne Traffic Accidents: Definition and Application," Journal of Shanghai Maritime University, March 2019.

[3] Ocean Prefect Shipping Limited v. Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS (Ocean Prefect) [2019] EWHC 3368.

[4] Alan M. Weigel, "Using Accident Reports in Casualty Litigation," available at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/marine-shipping/159518/using-accident-reports-in-casualty-litigation.

[5] John D. Winter & Adam P. Blumenkrantz, "The Admission of Government Agency Reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(c)," available at: https://www.pbwt.com/content/uploads/2015/07/Admission-of-Government-Agency-Reports.

[6] EU Directive 2009/18/EC.

[7] Civil Judgments: (2018) Lu 72 Min Chu No. 1071; (2018) Yue 72 Min Chu No. 702.

[8] Civil Judgment: (2018) Zhe 72 Min Chu No. 850.

[9] Interpretation of Article 114, Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law.

[10] Civil Judgment: (2011) Wu Hai Fa Shi Zi No. 15 – the court declined to recognize the "second collision" determination made by the Changshu Maritime Office.

[11] Jiang Bixin (Ed.), Understanding and Applying the Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Its Judicial Interpretations, People's Court Press, 2015, p. 83.

[12] Zeng Yujie, Legal Issues in China's Maritime Accident Investigation Conclusions, Master's Thesis, Dalian Maritime University, 2020.

[13] See note [11], interpretation of Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law, which holds that an act qualifies as an administrative act if it meets four key elements: it is performed by an administrative authority; it occurs in the course of administrative management; it includes both lawful and unlawful acts; and both acts of commission and omission by the administrative authority.

[14] Maritime Safety Administration of China, Introduction to Waterborne Traffic Accidents, Dalian Maritime University Press, 2003, p. 40.

[15] Song Mingxiang, "On the Justiciability of Waterborne Accident Liability Determinations," Water Transport Management, January 2006.

[16] Pei Ertai & Wang Yan, "Research on Quasi-Administrative Acts," Administrative Law Review, Issue 1, 2004.

[17] Xu Chenghua & Li Xingxing, "Quasi-Administrative Acts Are Justiciable," People's Court Daily, April 12, 2017, p. 6.

[18] Jiang Ming'an (Ed.), Administrative Law and Administrative Procedure Law (6th ed.), Peking University Press & Higher Education Press, p. 189.

[19] Guo Feng, "On the Concept of Liability in Waterborne Traffic Accidents: Definition and Application," Journal of Shanghai Maritime University, March 2019.

[20] Liu Dequan (Chief Editor), Compilation of Judicial Views of the Supreme People's Court (Volume on Administrative and State Compensation Cases), Vol. I, China Legal Publishing House, 2017, p. 192.

[21] Qiao Wenjin, "A Legal Analysis of Administrative Acts as Evidence," available at https://www.chinacourt.org.

[22] Cai Xiaoxue, Practical Guidelines on Administrative Adjudication and Enforcement, People's Court Press, 2009, pp. 454-456.

[23] Committee Member Xia Xianpeng, "Proposal to Treat Documents of Maritime Accident Liability Determination as Evidence," reported by NetEase News.

[24] Jiang Ming'an (Ed.), Administrative Law and Administrative Procedure Law (6th ed.), Peking University Press & Higher Education Press, 2015, p. 10.

[25] Maritime Safety Administration of China, Introduction to Waterborne Traffic Accidents, Dalian Maritime University Press, 2003, p. 36.

[26] Huang Wenkai & Wang Shujuan, "Can Subsequent Administrative Acts Absorb Preliminary Acts?", Cross-Strait Legal Science, June 2018.

[27] Zhang Jiansheng, Basic Theories of Modern Administrative Law, Law Press, 2008, p. 516.

[28] Liu Dequan (Chief Editor), Compilation of Judicial Views of the Supreme People's Court (Volume on Administrative and State Compensation Cases), Vol. I, China Legal Publishing House, 2017, p. 192.

[29] Ma Sheng'an, "On the Binding Force of Administrative Acts in Judicial Adjudication: A Dual Perspective of Normative and Empirical Analysis," Judicial Reform Review, 2019, Vol. 2.