Administrative action regulated by administrative law is a core concept in the administrative law of every country, especially in the civil law system. Due to the diversity and complexity of administrative actions in application, administrative law circles must use effective classification methods when conducting theoretical research on administrative actions or regulating that by legal norms. Two main aspects account for the necessity of classifying administrative actions. Firstly, in terms of the meaning of theoretical research, there are such enormous differences in characteristics, contents, factors, and effects. Among different types of administrative actions that it is impossible to summarize some valuable and universal rules if the classification of all types of administrative actions from realistic ones is undone. Secondly, in terms of the practice of rule of law, the classification is the presumption of constructing related principles and systems. It is generally acknowledged that there are two basic functions in enforcing administrative power by any administrative agency, the first one is rulemaking, the other being adjudication. Based on this, dichotomy is the most important method in the research on the classification of administrative actions in various countries. However, when countries adopt relevant standards to take a dichotomy for administrative actions, the problem of intermediate-state appears. This kind of intermediate-state actions has both the characteristics of rulemaking and adjudication, and it is not convincing to characterize this kind of intermediate-state actions as either. Until today, this problem has not been effectively solved in our theoretical research and the practice of administrative law. Theoretically, without analysis and conceptual definition of these intermediate-state actions, it will certainly cause confusions and difficulties in the practice of the rule of law, making it impossible to clarify formal elements, illegal consequences and judicial protection and other theoretical and operational issues. In their approach to this intermediate-state problem of countries around the world, the most effective resolution is the mechanism and concept of ″generalized adjudication″ from Germany. It not only settles the intermediate-state problems, but also pushes the administrative adjudication to break through the constraints of the specific counterpart and makes clear the legal attribute of the administrative action that is aimed directly at the object. The influence of the ″generalized adjudication″ from Germany goes further. It also influences many other civil law countries and regions on their administrative law theories and systems of legal norms. Based on the background of administrative law theory and judicial practice in our country, it is feasible to lead in ″generalized adjudication″ to resolve the intermediate-state problems, as there are three reasons: (1) for a long period, the construction and development of the administrative law system in our country has been deeply affected by Germany; (2) the problems we are facing are similar to those of Germany; and (3) the research methods of the two countries are basically the same. For introducing the ″generalized adjudication″ concept into China, we should firstly fix the standards of dichotomy between administrative regulations and administrative adjudications by abolishing the long-standing misunderstanding of the counterpart of administrative adjudication. Secondly, either the standard of ″specific factual relationship″ in Germany or the standard of ″can be applied repeatedly″ in China has some vagueness. Because of that, it ought to adopt the standard of ″can be used to regulate similar affairs″ as the only basis to distinguish administrative regulations and administrative adjudications. This means that the direct effect of administrative adjudication merely acts on the ″affair″ it deals with, but is absolutely ″not″ available for ″the same affairs″ that have already happened or are likely to happen, while the effect of administrative regulation is able to act on the same affairs, this being the essential difference between them. Thirdly, the ″generalized adjudication″ concept needs to be normalized and institutionalized in order to combine with the administrative law system of our country. Only by doing this can we actually resolve the intermediate-state problem on the dichotomy of rulemaking and adjudication.