(1) The first principle of administrative litigation reconciliation is the principle of voluntary reconciliation, which is the first principle of administrative litigation reconciliation. The people's court shall fully respect the opinions of the parties, especially the plaintiff. Only on the premise that the parties are completely voluntary can they enter the reconciliation procedure of administrative litigation. After all, voluntariness is the prerequisite for reaching a consensus. The voluntary principle includes two aspects: voluntary reconciliation and voluntary reconciliation agreement. The former is voluntary in procedure and the latter is voluntary in substance. Therefore, in administrative litigation, the application of reconciliation must reflect the voluntary will of the parties, and the people's court must never reconcile against the will of the parties. The second is the principle of reconciliation according to law, which is an important principle that must be adhered to in administrative litigation reconciliation. The original intention of administrative litigation reconciliation is to better solve administrative litigation disputes. However, it is not unprincipled for the court to promote the reconciliation of the parties, but it must be based on grasping the case and distinguishing right from wrong. Otherwise, it will probably infringe on the legitimate interests of society, the state or the third party, which is not allowed by law and violates the original intention of the administrative litigation system. The third is the principle of equal status. In administrative actions, the administrative organ and the administrative counterpart, one is the manager and the other is the managed person, but in administrative litigation, both parties are participants in litigation activities and have equal legal status, which is also the basis for equal consultation and reconciliation. The fourth is the principle of limited reconciliation. Completely different from civil litigation mediation, administrative litigation reconciliation is not entirely within the scope of punishment for the parties. The legality of administrative public power entering administrative litigation can only be determined by the court through judgment. Reconciliation must be carried out within the disciplinary authority of the parties. As far as administrative public power is concerned, the disposition right of the parties is strictly limited by law. There is no middle ground between the legal administrative acts and illegal administrative acts of administrative organs. However, within the scope of the law, the administrative organ has certain punishment power, and the administrative counterpart has the right to punish his substantive rights. This punishment has scope and limits. Therefore, the settlement of administrative litigation is not applicable to every case, and it is not a priority settlement, but a limited settlement. Another meaning of limited reconciliation is that the role of the people's court in the process of administrative litigation is an intermediary legal examiner, whose duty is to abide by judicial neutrality, present facts, distinguish right from wrong and promote reconciliation, rather than actively intervene in disputes between the two sides. (II) Types of mediation of administrative cases Administrative litigation must abide by the principle that public power shall not be arbitrarily punished, so not all the sued administrative acts are subject to coordinated mediation. In the process of performing administrative duties, the specific administrative acts made by administrative organs can be divided into two types. One is to restrain administrative acts and restrict the relative person from or continuing to exist certain legal facts, which involve such acts, such as not harming the state, public interests and the legitimate rights and interests of others. The second is "discretionary" behavior, that is, the administrative organ has certain decision-making space, and can choose among various actions that can be taken, and take or not take certain actions according to the judgment of the administrative organ. The scope of its free choice is not limited to the content of the decision, but also the way, time or place to take action, including not taking action. For administrative compensation cases and administrative contract cases, on the basis of finding out the facts and distinguishing the responsibilities, it is entirely possible for the judge to explain the compensation standard or the rights and obligations assumed by both parties, and it is entirely possible for the judge to preside over the discussion and settlement between the two parties. From the perspective of judicial practice, through classified analysis, the following administrative cases can be reconciled: 1, and there are flaws in the specific administrative act, which the administrative organ recognizes and is willing to make up accordingly. 2. The revocation of the sued administrative act will cause great losses to the state, public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others. 3. If the administrative organ fails to perform its statutory duties, it shall be coordinated by the court. The administrative organ can fulfill its obligations and solve the contradictions between the two sides. 4. The contradiction between the specific administrative act and the administrative organ is prominent. If a judgment is made, it may intensify the contradiction and affect social stability. 5. Although the procedure and entity of the accused specific administrative act are legal, there are some practical problems that need to be solved. 6. Administrative compensation cases. 8. Other circumstances that can be coordinated. (3) The initiation of the reconciliation procedure of administrative cases cannot run through the whole litigation process like the mediation of general civil cases, but must be carried out after the court session. On the basis of finding out the facts, determining the focus of disputes between the parties and distinguishing the rights and obligations of both parties, it may be proposed by one or both parties, or by the presiding judge ex officio. However, whether to reconcile the case should fully respect the wishes of the parties. The content of reconciliation, especially the legality of specific administrative acts, must be clear, and the intention and purpose of reconciliation must be legal. Reconciliation shall generally be organized and implemented by the presiding judge of this case, or presided over by other members of the collegial panel. According to the nature, difficulty, development and changes of administrative disputes, we can take flexible and diverse forms and invite relevant departments or individuals to participate. When necessary, you can win the support of the chief executive at the same level and the guidance of the higher court. When a case is settled, the parties should be informed of the litigation risks and expenses, so that they can weigh the gains and losses of interests and persuade them to try their best to settle the case through consultation. When the two parties reach a "consensus" on the focus of the dispute through compromise by one party or appropriate concessions by both parties, the court records the contents of the "consensus" and forms a settlement agreement. When the content of performance is completed and the plaintiff applies for withdrawing the lawsuit, the people's court may rule that the withdrawal of the lawsuit cannot be performed immediately or at one time, and the people's court may rule that the withdrawal of the lawsuit is allowed or the trial is suspended. In the ruling allowing the withdrawal of the lawsuit, the main contents and performance of the defendant's specific administrative act can be stated clearly, and it can be made clear in the reasons for the ruling that all or part of the defendant's specific administrative act will not be executed according to the specific circumstances of the case. After reaching a settlement agreement, the defendant changes the specific administrative act that is unfavorable to him, but the parties do not withdraw the lawsuit, the people's court shall make a timely judgment.