Bringing policy commitments into the rule of law is a necessary path to optimizing the business environment, and it is of great significance to analyze the effectiveness of defective policy commitments. A defective policy commitment is one that is unreasonable or imperfect in terms of content or form, thereby calling into question its legal validity. In the face of the “practice” of unlawful policy promises, the judiciary has shifted from deliberate avoidance to recognizing the violation of the law and requiring the government to take ex post facto remedial measures, so that it is appropriate to shift to the application of the “doctrine of diminution of punishment” in the event that the government subsequently penalizes the counterparty who has relied on the unlawful policy promises of the government. In the current jurisprudence, legal norms that regulate the internal relations

将政策承诺纳入法治化轨道是优化营商环境的必经之路,辨析瑕疵政策承诺的效力具有重大意义。瑕疵政策承诺是指在内容或形式等方面存在不合理或不完善之处,从而在法律效力上遭受质疑的政策承诺。面对非法政策承诺的“实践惯例”,司法部门已由刻意回避转向确认违法,且要求政府采取事后补救措施,若政府对信赖其非法政策承诺的相对人嗣后处罚,宜转向适用“减罚论”。在当前的司法判例,批复等约束政府内部关系的法律规范不能自动产生政策承诺,而契合“政府职责论”和“权利义务明确论”的会议纪要,可自动产生政策承诺,并在行政主体和行政相对人间产生效力。为解决初始政策承诺内容和嗣后承诺变更的理解分歧,避免政府以行政优益权为由“随意解释”,存在由“公共利益导向”转向“行政相对人利益导向”解释瑕疵政策承诺效力的趋势。口头政策承诺的效力存在“否认说”和“证明说”两种观点,而“否认说”业已成为主流观点,书面形式是政策承诺法治化转向的法定要求和必然趋向。