版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請進(jìn)行舉報或認(rèn)領(lǐng)
文檔簡介
中國法律職業(yè)狀況調(diào)查研究報告雙城記中國法律職業(yè)狀況報告Ataleoftwocities
ThelegalprofessioninChina發(fā)布人:國際律師協(xié)會,倫敦By
IBA研究作者:ByMarcoMarazzi
andChenYouxi
[國際律協(xié)意大利律師]MarcoMarazzi
[中國律師]陳有西
[研究助理]:中國人民大學(xué)律師學(xué)院法律碩士研究生
劉蕓
[英文正式發(fā)布文件,PDF轉(zhuǎn)換]
INTERNATIONALBAR
ASSOCIATION’SHUMAN
RIGHTSINSTITUTE(IBAHRI)
THEMATICPAPERSNo2ATaleofTwoCities–
theLegalProfessioninChinaMarcoMarazziandChenYouxi
Materialcontainedinthisreportmaybefreelyquotedorreprinted,
providedcreditisgiventotheInternationalBarAssociation.ATaleofTwoCities
–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012
ThispaperwillanalysethecurrentsituationofthelegalprofessioninChina,thedifficultiesfacedby
lawyers,andtheprospectsforimprovement.Itwillarguethat,whilethelegalprofessioninChinaisacquiringincreasingimportanceandstrength–withthenumberoflawyersnowexceeding230,000(asopposedtoonlyover2,000lessthan30yearsago)–theindependenceoflawyersremainsanaspirationmorethanareality;dependingontheirareaofpractice,lawyerscansuffergreatconstraintsinwhattheycanrealisticallyachieveandintheexerciseoftheirrights.Thisisgraduallyleadingtoabifurcationwithinthesystem:betweenlawyersdealingmostlywithcivilandcommercialmatterswhobenefitfrombothanincreasingabilitytoexercisetheirrightsandfromgrowingfinancialrewards;andlawyerswhodealwithmoresensitiveadministrativeandcriminalcases,whofaceofteninsurmountablechallenges,andasaconsequence,tendtobemuchlesssuccessfulfinanciallyandenjoyamuchlowerstatuswithinthelegalprofessionasawhole.
Inotherwords,whilelegalpractitionersmaybepartofthesamebarassociationandworkwithinthesamecity,theyareactuallylivingandworkingintwoseparateanddifferentworlds,dependingon
thenatureoftheirpractice.Theoutcomeisthatthebrightestandmorecapablelawyersoftentendtorefrainfromhandlingpreciselythosetypesofcaseswherealawyercanmakeadifferenceinthe
protectionoffundamentalrights.BackgroundDuringthe1930s,inthepartofChinathatwasundercontroloftheChineseCommunistParty,the
birthofthelegaldefencesystemcanbetracedbacktotheperiodoftheso-called‘revolutionary
bases’.In1932,alegaldefencesystemhadalreadybeencreatedinsidethebaseareasinaccordance
withtheInterimOrganizationsandRegulationsoftheJudgesDepartment,enactedbytheCentral
ExecutiveCommitteeoftheChineseSovietRepublic.Theserulesstatedthat,withtheapprovalof
acourt,thedefendantcouldappointarepresentativetodefendthemduringthetrialinorderto
protectallrelevantinterests.FollowingtheestablishmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC)in1949,theexistinglegal
professionsufferedseveralsignificantsetbacks.Withtheabolitionoflegalsystemsadoptedbythe
formerNationalistgovernmentbasedontheso-called‘SixCodes’,manymembersofthelegal
professionwerelistedas‘reactionary’andwerepurged.Thelegalprofessionalmostvanished.*
MarcoMarazziisaforeignlawyerwhohaslivedandworkedinChinaformorethan18years.ChenYouxiisalegalpractitionerspecialisingin
criminallaw,apartnerofCapitalEquityLegalGroupandaprofessoroflaw.LiuYun,aPhDstudentatPeople’sUniversityofChina,actively
liaisedwiththeauthorsonthisarticle.Theviewsandopinionsexpressedhereinareoftheauthorsonlyanddonotinanymannerrepresent
thoseoftheircurrentemployers.
DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina
Inparticular,inDecember1950,theMinistryofJustice(MoJ)issuedthe‘CircularConcerning
Banning“Evil-MindedLawyers”andPettifoggers’,whichexplicitlyoutlawedbarassociations
andother‘lawyering’activitiesexistingduringtheperiodoftheNationalistgovernment.Asa
consequence,defendantsincriminaltrialsweretriedthroughthe‘revolutionarymass’method
withoutanylegaldefence.TheveryexistenceoflawyerswasnotrecogniseduntiltheenactmentofthefirstConstitutionofthe
People’sRepublicofChinain1954,whichstatedclearlyunderArticle76that‘caseswhichareheard
bythecourtsshouldbeopentothepublicexceptforsomespecialsituationsstatedbythelaw,and
theaccusedhastherighttodefence’.In1956,theMoJissuedthefirst‘ReportonInstructionsConcerningtheEstablishmentof
Lawyers’,creatingthefirstprofessionallawyersystemsincethefoundationofthePeople’s
Republic.TheChinesegovernmentcultivateditsownlawyerstoserveinthisnewregime;
mostofthemwerestudentswhoreturnedfromtheSovietUnionandthosewhohadreceived
alegaleducationduringtheperiodoftheNationalistgovernment.However,the‘Anti-Rightist’
campaign–initiatedin1957byMaoZedong–againidentifiednearlyhalfofthe2,000plus
lawyersexistingatthattimeas‘rightists’and,therefore,subjectsofpersecution.DuringtheCulturalRevolution(1966–1976)–whichledtoaperiodofalmosttotallawlessnessinthe
administrationofjustice–lawfacultieswereclosed,lawyerqualificationexamsweresuspended,and
lawfirmsandbarassociationspracticallyceasedtoexist.FollowingMao’sdeathin1976,thetrialoftheGangofFour1andtheascenttopowerofDeng
Xiaoping,ChinaadoptedanewCriminalProcedureLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina
(the‘CriminalProcedureLaw’)re-affirmingtherighttodefenceoftheaccused,leadingtothe
rebirthofthelegalprofession.Therighttodefencewassubsequentlyrecognisedalsointhenew
Constitutionadoptedin1982.Inparticular,theCriminalProcedureLawenactedin1979providedthattheaccusedcanseeklegalhelp
fromthebeginningoftheinvestigationandthat,whenthecaseisheard,theaccusednotonlyhadthe
righttodefendthecharges(meaningthattheycanarguethecasepersonally),butalsotherighttoapply
forthecollectionofevidenceandforfurtherinvestigations.Theaccusedalsohadtherighttomakea
finalstatementandappealduringthetrialandtoappointalegaldefenderwhocouldbealawyer,ora
civilianwhoisrecommendedbytheaccused’sworkunit(orthemassorganisationhebelongedto),oras
permittedbythecourt,oracloserelativeorcustodianoftheaccused.Theresponsibilityofthedefender
wastooffermaterialsandargumentsbasedonthefactsandlaw,whichcanprovetheaccusednotguilty
orcanreduceoravoidcriminalliability,andtoprotectthelegitimaterightsandinterestsoftheaccused.
Thelawyerwaspermittedtoconsultthematerialsrelevanttothecase,andtomeetandcommunicatewith
theaccusedinwriting.Allofthiscouldbedonealsobyotherdefenderswiththepermissionofthecourt.
Thelawalsoprovidedthatincaseswheretherewasapublicprosecutor,iftheaccuseddidnotappointa
defender,thecourtcouldappointone.Duringthetrial,iftheaccusedbelievedthatthedefendercould
notprotecthisorherlegitimaterights,thelegaldefendercouldbedismissedandanotherappointed.TheGangofFourcomprisedMao’swifeandthreeotherCommunistPartyofficialswho,afterMao’sdeath,wereaccusedof‘a(chǎn)nti-Party’
activitiesandofbeingresponsiblefortheworstexcessesduringtheCulturalRevolution.In1981,theyweretriedandconvictedinwhatmany
believewasapoliticallymotivatedtrialtoeliminatethemostconservativefigureswithinthePartyandstrengthenthepathtothe‘reformand
opening’policy.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012
In1980,ChinaadoptedtheInterimRegulationsonLawyersofthePeople’sRepublicofChina
(the‘InterimRegulations’),followedin1981and1986byotherregulationsissuedbytheSupreme
People’sCourt,2theSupremePeople’sProcuratorate,3andtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.Forover
adecade,thislegislationformedthebackboneofthelegalframeworkregulatingtheestablishment
oflawfirmsandtheparticipationoflawyersincourtproceedings.Followingthereopeningoflaw
facultiesatthebeginningofthe1980s,thefirstlawyerqualificationexamswereheldin1986,the
sameyearwhentheAllChinaLawyersAssociation(ACLA)wasfounded.Onecouldjustifiably
say,therefore,thatthelegalprofessioninthe‘new’China(ie,theChinaemergingfromMao’s
totalitarianperiod)isbarely30yearsold.Underthe1980InterimRegulations,lawyersweredefinedas‘workersofthestate’who‘represented
thestate’and‘protectedtheinterestsofthestate’.Inotherwords,lawyerswereseenascivilservants;
theyweresalariedbythestateandthereforewerenotfreeprofessionals.Lawyerswereseenasa
componentoftheoveralladministrationofjusticeandwereexpectedtoassistintheenforcementof
lawsandregulations,andtoupholdthesocialistcause.4Accordingly,virtuallyalllawfirmsandlegal
advisoryofficescreatedinthedecadefollowingthereopeningoflawfacultieswereinonewayor
anotheraffiliatedtogovernmentdepartmentsorentities.Attheendofthe1980sthefirstforeignlawfirmsalsostartedflockingintoChina,initiallyinthe
formofconsultingcompanies,workingonnon-litigationmattersandnotallowedtoappearincourt.
However,foreignlawfirmsquicklyachievedanalmosttotalmonopolyoncommercialandcorporate
legaladvicegiventothelargenumberofforeigninvestorsenteringthecountry.In1992,theMoJissued
rulesrestrictingthescopeoftheforeignfirms’activities:whilestillabletohirelocallyqualifiedlawyers
andlawstudents,theywererestrictedtopractisingthelawoftheirhomecountriesanddealingwith
non-litigationmattersconcerningenterprisesfromtheirowncountries.Inotherwords,theycould
notpractiselocallaweveniftheyemployedlocally-qualifiedlawyers.Thissituationhasnotchanged.
Atthesametime,foreignfirmshavecontributedactivelytothetrainingofanewgenerationofPRC
commercialandcorporatelawyers,someofwhomlefttheseforeignfirmstosetuptheirownfirms.Atthebeginningofthe1990s,aspartoftheoveralleconomicliberalisationandreform,thefirst
firmsorganisedalongthelinesoftheprivatepartnershipmodelwereestablished.Manystate-owned
lawfirmsstartedtoconvertintopartnershipsusingapersonalpartnershipmodelwherepartners
assumeunlimitedjointandseveralliability,aswellasintocorporate-stylepartnerships.Junhe
LawOffices(nowoneofthelargestinChina)wasfoundedin1989;andKing&Wood,5another
prominentfirmwhichrecentlymergedwithanAustralianfirm,wasfoundedin1993.Duringthe
sameperiod,thefirstfirmsregisteredunderthenameofanindividuallawyeralsowerefounded.Since2008,withtheamendmentoftheLawyersLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina(the
‘LawyersLaw’),over90percentofthelawfirmsinthecountryareorganisedunderthepersonal
partnershipmodelandnamedafterthepartners;althoughsomestate-ownedlawfirmsstillremain
insomeremoteandless-developedareas.Inaddition,allcorporate-stylepartnershipshadtobe2Thisisthehighest-levelcourtinChina.Itfunctionsascourtofappealforcasesheardbyprovinciallevelcourtsandprovidesinterpretationof
lawsandregulations.
3TheSupremePeople’sProcuratorateisthehighestlevelprosecutorialauthority.
4Asnotedbelow,toalargeextentlawyersarestillseenasperformingthis‘a(chǎn)uxiliary’roleintheadministrationofjusticeandareexpectedto
protecttheinterestofthestateandoftheChineseCommunistParty.
5NowknownasKing&WoodMallesons.DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina
reorganisedintermsofthepersonalpartnershipmodel.Meanwhile,legalaidcentres–funded
bythestate–havebeensetupunderthelocaljusticebureaus,aimingtohelptheneedy.Someof
thebiglawfirms,suchasDacheng,King&WoodMallesons,AllBright,andJingheng,nowemploy
thousandsoflawyers,andtheyhavespecificdivisionsofprofessionalpractice.However,PRC
lawyerswhopractiseinmedium–smalllawfirmstendtobe‘generalists’andundertakelitigation
(oftenbothcivilandcriminal)aswellascommercialandcorporatework.6Inthepastfewyears,however,thelargestfirms(especiallythosewithalargenation-widenetwork)
havefocusedmainlyoncommercial/corporateworkandrelatedcommercial/civillitigation,for
twoprincipalreasons:first,becausetheseremainthemostprofitablepractices;andsecondly,
because(aswillbefurtherexplainedlater)criminalcasesandadministrativelitigationcasestoa
largeextentremainlessrewardingfinanciallyandaremoreriskyfromaprofessionalpointofview,
andthustheyfailtoappealtomanysuccessfulandcapablelawyers.TheLawyersLawThedevelopmentofprivatefirmsandtheincreasingroleplayedbylawyersinthelegalsysteminthe
1990sledtotheadoptionin1996ofthenew‘LawyersLaw’.Thislaw(furtheramendedin2007)is
recognisedastherealfirst‘code’regulatinglawyersinthe‘newChina’.UndertheLawyersLaw,alawyerisdefinedas‘a(chǎn)practitionerwhohasdulyobtainedthelawyer’s
practisingcertificateaccordingtothelawandwho,bywayofacceptinganappointmentor
throughdesignation,provideslegalservicestoaconcernedparty’–averydifferentdefinition
fromthepreviousoneof‘workerofthestate’.TheLawyersLawalsostatesthat,intheirpractise,
lawyersmustnotonly‘a(chǎn)bidebytheConstitutionandthelaw,andadheretotheethicsofthelegal
professionandpractisediscipline’,butalsothatthey‘shallbesubjecttothemonitoringbythe
state,thepublicandtheconcernedparty’.Nevertheless,Article3(4)oftheLawyersLawstatesvery
clearlythat‘a(chǎn)lawyerpracticinginaccordancewiththelawshallbeprotectedbythelawandno
organisationorindividualmayinfringeuponhis/herlawfulrightsandinterests’.Inordertoqualifyasalawyer,anindividualmust‘upholdtheConstitution’andpassthestatejudicial
examination(since2002,Chinaholdsa‘unifiedbarexam’everyyearwhichopensthewaytoalllegal
professions).Theindividualisalsorequiredtohavecompletedafullyear’straininginalawfirm,and
similarlytorequirementsfoundinotherjurisdictions,isto‘[be]ofgoodconduct’.Thepractisingcertificateallowsthelawyertopractisenationwide,thatis,itisnotsubjecttoany
territoriallimitation.Moreimportantly,however,lawyerscannotpractise‘solo’andmustwork
onlythroughdulyestablishedlawfirms.Inaddition,theycannotworkformorethanonefirm.In
otherwords,thepractisingcertificatecannotbeusedbyalawyerunlesstheyareregisteredasa
practitionerwithalawfirm.Anyappointmentneedstobeacceptedbythefirmasawholeandfees
mustbecollectedbythefirm.Forthemuchofthe1990s,thelegalsystemwasnotverysophisticatedanditwaspossibleforalegalpractitionertomasterseveraltypesof
practice.Forinstance,China–whichisacivillawsystem–didnothavealawgoverningtheformationandoperationofcompaniesuntil1993,
nordidithaveacomprehensive‘ContractLaw’until1999,anditstilldoesnothaveaformalcivilcode.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012
Atthesametime,thestateevaluatesandmanageslawyersthroughtheannualrenewalsystemand,
inaddition,requeststhatlawyerstobecomemembersofthelocalbarsothattheybecomesubject
tobarregulations.Onceregisteredasalawyer,theindividualissubjecttoayearlyrenewalsystemfortheirpractising
certificate.Thepractisingcertificatemayberevokedorcancelledifitwasprocuredthroughimproper
means(fraudorbribery),oriftheapplicantdidnotmeettheconditionsforbeingissuedalicence.The
assessmenttodeterminewhetheranindividualmeetstherequirementstoberegisteredasalawyeror
tohavetheirlicenserenewedfallswithinthepowersofthelocalbureauofjustice,ratherthanthebar
association.Thispeculiarfeatureofthelawyerlicensingsystemstillremainstodayundertherevised
2008LawyersLaw,althoughinotherrespects(suchastheproceduralrightsoflawyersincriminal
trials),the2008amendmentshaveimproved–atleastonpaper–thesituationoflawyers.Underthe2008LawyersLaw,lawyershaveadutyto‘safeguardthelegalrightsandinterestsof
theirclients’.Whenactingasdefencecounsel,theyaregivenbroadrightstopresentmaterialsand
evidence,andtoreview,extractandcopyfilesrelatedtothecaseevenwhenthecasematerialsare
stillunderreviewbytheprosecutor.Asaforementioned,administratively,theLawyersLawentrusts
theMoJ,and,inparticular,thelocaldepartmentofjusticeatcitylevel,withtheresponsibility
ofadministeringthelawyers’licensingsystem,assessingthequalificationsoflawyers,andtaking
disciplinaryactionsagainstthem.Ontheotherhand,thelocalbarassociationsaregiventhemore
limitedroleofrepresentingtheprofessionasawhole,carryingouttrainingactivitiesandhandling
professionalliabilityinsurancematters.Barassociationsarealsoempoweredtoissuefinesand
penaltiesifthelawyerswithintheirjurisdictionbreachthelocalbarassociation’sownrules.Inadditiontoexercisingcontroloverthelawyers,thejudicialbureausalsoexercisebroader
controloverlawfirmsbyrequiringthemtosubmitanannualpracticereportandtheresultsofthe
assessmentoftheirlawyers’practise.Lawfirmsarerequiredtosubmitabriefdescriptionofthemain
caseshandledanddescribeanyspecificissuesencounteredduringtheirpractiseinthepreviousyear.
Inaddition,lawfirmsaresubjecttotheannualregistrationrenewalsystem.Thesefeaturesofthe
LawyersLawallowtheexecutivebranchsubstantialcontroloverthelegalprofession.TheLawyersLawalsocontainsprovisionsfortheestablishmentofalegalaidsystem,allowing
individualsfreesupportfromaqualifiedlawyerincasesrelatedtofamilysupport,work-related
injuries,criminalactions,statecompensationclaims,orpaymentofpensionsfromdeceasedpersons.
EachlawfirminChinaisrequiredtoallocateanumberofdayseachyeartodischargingassignments
comingthroughthelegalaidsystem,andlawyerscangetallowancesfromthestatefortakingover
thesecases.Viewsdifferinthelegalcommunityonwhetherlegalaidcentreshavebeeneffectivein
increasingaccesstojustice.7FuHualing,forinstance,notesthatlegalaidcentresstillfacedifficultiesinpersuadingcourtstowaivecourtfeesevenforcasesthatqualifyfor
suchawaiver,andthatlawyersworkingforlegalaidcentresencountermoredifficultiesthanprivately-hireddefencecounselwhencollecting
evidenceinfavourofdefendants.Atthesametime,legalaidcentresarerecognisedascontributingtoanincreasedawarenessoftheimportance
ofthelaw,rulingacountryaccordingtolawandincreasing‘rightsconsciousness’(seeFuHualing,‘AccesstoJusticeandConstitutionalismin
China’,inBuildingConstitutionalisminChinabyStephanieBalmeandMichaelWDowdle(PalgraveMacmillan,2009)).DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina
ChallengesfacingthelegalprofessionThechallengesfacedbylawyersinChinacanberoughlydividedintotwobroadcategories.Thefirst
categoryincludeschallengesfacinganylawyerpractisinginChinaandappliestocivil,commercial,
administrativeandcriminallawyers.Thesecondincludesthosechallengesparticularlyfacedby
lawyerswhorepresentcertaincategoriesofcases–mainlycriminalandadministrativecases.Category11.Constraintsfacedduetothestructureofthejudicialsystem
VariousChinesescholarshavenotedthat,asdesigned,thePRCjudicialsystemdoesnotensurethe
independenceofjudges.Thisextendsbothto‘internal’independence(ie,theabilityofthejudgesto
exercisetheirfunctionswithoutinfluencefromsuperiorsorfromhigher-levelcourts),and‘external
independence’,thatis,theabilityofthejudgeandofthecourtasawholetomakedecisionswithout
undueinfluencefromexternalbodies.Since2002,theJudgesLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinahasmadesignificantprogressin
‘professionalising’itsjudges.Forinstance,allcandidatesarenowrequiredtopasstheunified
qualificationexamandtohavealawdegree–arequirementthatdidnotexistbeforethe2002reform;
andtherearetimidmovementstowardsreformofthefundingsystemofthecourts.However,there
aresignificantroadblocksremainingonthepathtoindependence.Forinstance,undertheOrganic
LawofthePeople’sCourtsofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,theadjudicationof‘significant,difficult
orcomplex’[sic]casesistakenawayfromthetrialjudgeandgiventoan‘a(chǎn)djudicationcommittee’
presidedoverbythecourt’sPresidentandcomposedofjudgeswhotypicallyaremoreseniorthanthe
onewhoheardthecase.Theadjudicationcommitteedecidesoncriminal,civilandadministrativecases.Whilethestatedintentofthelegislatorindesigningthissystemwastoensurethatyoungjudgescould
benefitfromtheopinionofmoreseniorandexperiencedones,especiallywhenfacingcomplexor
sensitivecases,thesystemhasseveralobvioussetbacks.First,thejudgescomprisingtheadjudication
committeereceiveonlyawrittenreportofthecasepreparedbythepresidingjudgeofthehearing,
andtherefore,theydonotbenefitfromtheactualexperienceofthetrial,theexchangesbetween
litigants,ortheargumentsmadebythedefenceandtheprosecution.Secondly,duetothespecial
roleplayedbythePresidentoftheCourt(whooftensitsalsoonthepoliticalandlegalcommittee
withinthelocalparty’scommission)8andtheimportanceoftheiropinionindecidingthecase,the
adjudicationcommitteecanbecomeavehiclethroughwhichlocalpoliticalinfluenceisexercisedon
theoutcomeofthecase.Inthesecircumstances,theargumentsandcounterargumentsmadebythe
lawyers(especiallythedefenceteamincriminaltrialsortheplaintiff’scounselinanadministrative
casewherethelocalgovernmentisbeingsued)mayloserelevancewhenthefinaldecisionismade.
AlloftheaboveislargelycriticisedbymanyChineseacademicsandpractitionersasasituationin
which:acasemayhavebeenheardbutitdoesn’thaveaverdict;or,acasehashadaverdictbutit
didn’thaveatrial.Theselegalandpoliticalcommittees(ZhengfaWei)arepartofthe‘parallel’partystructurethatcanbefoundatvirtuallyeverylevelof
governmentinChina.Theyareinchargeof‘coordinating’andsupervisingtheworkofthepublicsecuritydepartment,thepeople’s
procuratorate(ie,theofficeoftheprosecutor),thepeople’scourtsandthejudicialdepartmentwithintheadministrativeprecinct.Although
thereisnolegalrequirementthatcourtsimplementdecisionstakenbytheZhengfaWei,itwouldbepoliticallydifficultforajudgetodisregard
theopinionofsuchapowerfulbody.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012
Inaddition,duetothefactthatadministrativeprecinctsalmostinvariablycoincidewithjudicial
precincts,thelocalpeople’scongressappointalljudgesworkinginthecourtswithinthesame
precincts.Courtsrelyalmostentirelyonthelocalgovernmentfortheirfunding,personneland
resources.Thiscreatesadditionaldifficultiesforlawyersarguingacaseinwhichlocalinterestsare
atstake,oracasedeemedpolitically‘sensitive’fromtheperspectiveofthelocalgovernmentorthe
localparty’sorganisation,which–asexplained–overseestheoveralladministrationofjusticeatlocal
levelthroughthepoliticalandlegalcommittee.Finally,lowercourtsoftenseek‘guidance’ondifficultorsensitivecasesfromupperlevelcourts,
sometimesinordertoexcludetheirownresponsibilityandkeepingoodtermswithupper-level
politicalauthorities.Thisiscalled‘reporttotheauthorityinadvance’.Inthismanner,therecanbe
adiscussionwhichtranscendsthetrialjudgeonwhetheranaccusedisguiltyornotandonwhatthe
penaltyshouldbe,leadingtotheinvolvementoftheupperlevelcourtinacasethathasnotyetbeen
appealed.Oneofthereasonswhylowercourtjudgesseektheopinionof,andsupportofhigher
levelcourtsintheirdecision,isthatjudgesarerewardedfinanciallyaswellascareer-wisebasedon
acomplex‘points’system,withpointstakenawayforthejudgewhoserulingsareoverturnedon
appeal.Asaresult,agreatmajorityofjudgments–especiallythoseincriminalcases–areconfirmed
onappeal.Itbecomesmoredifficulttogetjudicialremediesduringtheappealphaseiftheappeal
judgehasbeeninvolvedinearlierdiscussionsanddecisionsaboutthecasewhenitwasbeing
examinedbythelowercourt.Decisionsonimportantcasesthatgainedtheattentionofgovernment
authoritiesandsocietyaremostlikelytobeupheldonappeal.2.Casefilingsystem
Anotherstumblingblockforlawyersistheabilitytogettheircaseheard,duetotheexistenceof
the‘filingdivision’ineachpeople’scourt.InChina,thecourtsadoptanexaminationandapproval
systembeforetheyacceptacaseforhearing,whichisdifferentfromtheregistrationsystemin
placeinmanyothercountries.Asaresult,thecourtcanrefusetohearacaseevenwhenthereare
substantiverightsatstake.Thecase-filingdivisionworksasadefacto‘filter’forlawsuits.Itisseparatefromthetrialdivision
andgivesjudgessubstantialdiscretioninacceptingorrejectingcaseswithoutaffordingany
accessoraccountabilitytothepublic.Althoughitplaysmanyotherfunctions(eg,itcanavoidthe
irrationalmisuseoflitigationrights),somehavenotedthatthecasefilingdivisionsmayconstitute
anobstructiontotheadministrationofjusticebecauseitmaydepriveplaintiffsoftheirrightto
proceduralandsubstantivedueprocess.9Thishappensoftenincasesdeemedasbeing‘politically
sensitive’,andalsocaseswhereagovernmentdepartmentoranadministrationisnamedas
defendant,aswellasin‘collectiveactions’(ie,actionswithmultipleplaintiffs)ormasstortcases.
ThelackofclearanduniformguidanceundernationallaworSupremePeople’sCourt
interpretationsaboutwhattypesofcasescanbefiledcreatesaddit
溫馨提示
- 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
- 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
- 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒有圖紙。
- 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文庫網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
- 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
- 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔(dān)用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。
最新文檔
- 貴州財經(jīng)職業(yè)學(xué)院《先進(jìn)制造訓(xùn)練》2023-2024學(xué)年第一學(xué)期期末試卷
- 貴陽職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院《戶外基礎(chǔ)技能》2023-2024學(xué)年第一學(xué)期期末試卷
- 2025浙江省安全員A證考試題庫
- 白玉桃種植示范基地建設(shè)項目可行性研究報告-白玉桃市場需求持續(xù)擴(kuò)大
- 廣州中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)《商業(yè)銀行管理》2023-2024學(xué)年第一學(xué)期期末試卷
- 2025江蘇省安全員B證考試題庫
- 2025黑龍江省建筑安全員知識題庫附答案
- 2025河南省建筑安全員考試題庫附答案
- 2025河北建筑安全員《A證》考試題庫
- 2025年遼寧省安全員《A證》考試題庫
- 簡單的個人原因辭職報告(通用17篇)
- 交響曲欣賞-完整版PPT
- 公司軟件銷售管理制度
- micro810可編程控制器用戶手冊
- CVC導(dǎo)管維護(hù)技術(shù)評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)
- 東風(fēng)7C型(DF7C)內(nèi)燃機(jī)車
- 云南省縣級融媒體中心技術(shù)系統(tǒng)建設(shè)實施細(xì)則(2020年修訂版)
- (精心整理)林海雪原閱讀題及答案
- 規(guī)則大副貨運知識點
- 《2022年上海市初中語文課程終結(jié)性評價指南》中規(guī)定的150個文言實詞
- [國企、公務(wù)員、事業(yè)單位]面試題題目及答案解析
評論
0/150
提交評論