2017年《行政诉讼法》规定检察建议为行政公益诉讼的前置程序。这一制度创新为解决行政公益案件提供了新方向。检察建议制度充分体现了司法权对行政权的尊重，以督促的形式纠正行政机关的违法行为；同时，检察建议也为后续的诉讼程序提供前置的充分调查和保障，确保行政公益诉讼制度上的连贯性与可行性。近年来，大部分行政公益诉讼案件不会进入到诉讼阶段，因此此类案件的检察建议对于研究行政公益诉讼制度具有极其重要的意义。党的二十大报告明确提出完善公益诉讼制度，表明了党中央对制度实践的充分认可，也体现了对制度效能进一步提升的期望。值得肯定的是，公益诉讼检察建议制度在恢复受损公益、督促行政机关依法履职、节约司法资源中发挥重要作用，并在生态环境资源保护、食品药品安全等领域取得了相当可观的实践成效。然而，检察建议同样存在制度缺位、文书内容不规范、配套措施不完善等问题。

本文分为五个章节。在绪论中，阐述了研究背景与意义，对国内外研究现状进行梳理归纳，并明确了本文的研究方法以及创新点。在第一章中，对行政公益诉讼检察建议制度的理论进行介绍，先阐述检察建议的概念、法律渊源、内容规范，后论述其功能价值。在第二章中，从实践角度论述行政公益诉讼检察建议制度的运行现状，包括2018年至2023年全国行政公益诉讼检察建议的相关办案数据与实践成效。此外，笔者从北大法宝和各地检察院官网收集到176份行政公益诉讼检察建议书作为研究样本，介绍其制发时间、地域及领域，分析其制发对象、案件来源、具体内容、建议事项、回复期限等，并将相关数据制作成图表。在第三章中，结合第二章的数据分析结果以及检察建议文本内容，检视行政公益诉讼检察建议的问题。在制度设计方面，面临着线索来源单一、适用范围有限、调查取证难、听证制度方面的问题；在内容规范方面，存在对违法行为论述不足、建议内容详略不一、回复期限设置受限的问题；在配套措施方面，存在履职审查标准不明、与行政机关沟通不畅、检察建议不公开透明的问题。在第四章中，针对第三章的一系列问题提出解决方案，从优化制度设计、规范文书内容、健全配套机制三个方面来完善行政公益诉讼检察建议制度。

The Administrative Procedure Law of 2017 introduces prosecutorial proposals as a preliminary step for administrative public interest litigation, ushering in a fresh approach to tackling such cases. This system respects the administrative authority while rectifying illegal administrative acts through urging mechanisms. Furthermore, prosecutorial suggestions facilitate thorough investigation and secure the subsequent proceedings, enhancing the coherence and practicality of the administrative public interest litigation system. Given that most administrative public interest litigation cases avoid litigation, the prosecutorial suggestions are pivotal for studying the system. The Party's 20th National Congress report underscores the need to refine the public interest litigation system, reflecting the Party Central Committee's acknowledgment of its practice and aspirations for improved effectiveness. Notably, the prosecutorial suggestion system has significantly contributed to restoring damaged public interests, promoting lawful administrative duty fulfillment, and conserving judicial resources, particularly in safeguarding environmental resources, food safety, and pharmaceutical security. However, challenges persist, including a lack of systematicity, non-standardized documentation, and inadequate supporting measures.

This paper comprises five chapters, each serving a distinct purpose. The introductory chapter outlines the research background and its significance, reviews the current research landscape both domestically and internationally, and clarifies the methodology and novel contributions of this study. Chapter one delves into the theoretical framework of the prosecutorial suggestion system for administrative public interest litigation, commencing with the definition of prosecutorial suggestions, legal underpinnings, content specifications, and culminating in its functional merits. Chapter two, drawing from practical perspectives, assesses the operational status of this system, particularly focusing on case handling data and practical outcomes spanning from 2018 to 2023 in China. Furthermore, this chapter presents an analysis of 176 prosecutorial proposals for administrative public interest litigation sourced from Peking University and local procuratorates' official websites. These proposals are examined in terms of their timing, geographical and sectoral distributions, along with an in-depth analysis of their targets, case origins, specific contents, recommendations, and response deadlines. The findings are presented in the form of data visualizations for easy comprehension. In the third chapter, an in-depth analysis is conducted, integrating the data analysis findings from the previous chapter and the textual content of prosecutorial suggestions, to identify issues pertaining to prosecutorial suggestions in the context of administrative public interest litigation. Concerns were raised in regard to the system design, particularly the limited range of clue sources, narrow scope of applicability, challenges in investigation and evidence collection, as well as the hearing system. With regards to content regulation, issues were highlighted such as inadequate deliberation of illegal acts, varied suggestions, and constrained response deadlines. Moreover, in terms of supporting measures, we identified problems such as ambiguous performance evaluation criteria, inadequate communication with administrative authorities, and a lack of openness and transparency in prosecutorial suggestions. To address these issues, the fourth chapter outlines a comprehensive set of solutions aimed at enhancing the prosecutorial suggestion system for administrative public interest litigation, focusing on three key aspects: refining the system design, standardizing the content of documents, and strengthening the supporting mechanisms.