Suchergebnisse

"This book explains the details and underlying thinking of many major reforms to Chinese law and legal practice that have taken place since 2013. It draws widely on laws and regulations, policies, cases, official statistics as well as the latest Chinese and foreign literature. The informed analysis answers intriguing questions such as why China runs the world's largest database of court judgments without recognising any precedent, or why the number of judges was cut by 40% despite a more than doubled caseload. Ultimately it offers a new approach on how to understand Chinese law and legal reforms in the contemporary world"--

"This book explains the details and underlying thinking of many major reforms to Chinese law and legal practice that have taken place since 2013. It draws widely on laws and regulations, policies, cases, official statistics as well as the latest Chinese and foreign literature. The informed analysis answers intriguing questions such as why China runs the world's largest database of court judgments without recognising any precedent, or why the number of judges was cut by 40% despite a more than doubled caseload. Ultimately it offers a new approach on how to understand Chinese law and legal reforms in the contemporary world"--

Abstract
This article identifies and clarifies some of the miscommunication between Chinese and English in the discussion of rule of law or rule by law. "Rule by law" is not a concept readily understandable by a Chinese audience because there is no acceptable translation or equivalent in Chinese. At the same time, the historical and contextual significance of the different denotations of "rule of law" in Chinese is often overlooked in an English-speaking environment. Meanwhile, the abstraction in critical examination of Chinese law often masks significant changes taking place in China's construction of a "socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics", such as the emergence of a system of case law. The different components and aspects of such a system, ranging from the guidance cases system published by the Supreme People's Court, to the largest database of judicial decisions in the world, and the newly established China International Commercial Court under the Belt and Road Initiative could fundamentally alter and structure, nature and principles of Chinese law as we know it.

This study aims to identify and examine the different perception of benefit sharing in the sharing of international rivers in China, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Using the Q-Method, this study undertakes an in-depth analysis of the views of 35 experts of the field on hydrodiplomacy, international water law, benefit sharing and ecological benefits compensation. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis help to innovatively identify three streams of views among the participants, respectively described as supporters, idealists and pragmatists, each displaying strong geographical association to the three Asian regions. Supporters from Southeast Asia and pragmatists from China share much common ground on issues such as the types of benefits to share in international rivers, potentially providing the conceptual foundation for international cooperation. Idealists from South Asia prioritize and emphasise the role and importance of environmental benefits and ecological protection, yet differ greatly from the others on practical issues such as the inclusion of direct economic benefits and ecological compensation for using resources. This study contributes to the understanding of the theory and practice of benefit sharing in international rivers, as well as providing new perspectives to the interpretation and practice of hydrodiplomacy in Asian regions.

Abstract: Over the past decade, Chinese law has undergone a considerable number of major reforms, ranging from the high-profile constitutional amendments to the implementation of multiple online platforms, which have significantly altered legal practice and the judicial process. While scholarly debate remains split over whether China is turning away from law or is becoming more legalistic, there is little empirical understanding of how Chinese law and the legal system are perceived by those most affected by it, namely the Chinese citizens. This article fills the critical gap by leveraging an original public opinion survey of more than 5,000 Chinese adults to examine their views on issues such as the importance of law and the status of legal development in relation to economic growth. The findings suggest that Chinese citizens with actual experience of the legal system—whether from study, practice or personal involvement in litigation—hold vastly different views on many of these issues from those without such experience. The findings also suggest that important policy initiatives introduced by the Chinese leadership and the judiciary, such as the emphasis on constructing a socialist rule of law and the potential introduction of some system of case law, may enjoy popular support.

Over the past decade, Chinese law has undergone a considerable number of major reforms, ranging from the high-profile constitutional amendments to the implementation of multiple online platforms, which have significantly altered legal practice and the judicial process. While scholarly debate remains split over whether China is turning away from law or is becoming more legalistic, there is little empirical understanding of how Chinese law and the legal system are perceived by those most affected by it, namely the Chinese citizens. This article fills the critical gap by leveraging an original public opinion survey of more than 5,000 Chinese adults to examine their views on issues such as the importance of law and the status of legal development in relation to economic growth. The findings suggest that Chinese citizens with actual experience of the legal system—whether from study, practice or personal involvement in litigation—hold vastly different views on many of these issues from those without such experience. The findings also suggest that important policy initiatives introduced by the Chinese leadership and the judiciary, such as the emphasis on constructing a socialist rule of law and the potential introduction of some system of case law, may enjoy popular support. (China/GIGA)

Environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) is an important development in the evolving framework of environmental governance in China. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses of decided cases brought by local government, public prosecutors and environmental NGOs, this study critically examines the features, strengths, difficulties and obstacles in the EPIL practice of China. While there is remarkable success overall for all three groups in terms of outcome, they each display different approaches and focuses. The prosecutors have established themselves as the cornerstone of the system by being the most efficient in winning the greatest number of cases. NGOs moved away from collaboration with the prosecutors in low-value cases, effectively into a competition with the government in a smaller number of high-value cases, though they are willing to venture into areas where others hesitate over. The findings offer valuable insights into current EPIL practice and inform future policy adjustment and legislation.

Environmental Public Interest Litigation (EPIL) by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) emerged in China within the last decade amidst the growing focus on environmental issues and the increasing political need to bring greater public participation to the area. This article examines the current practice of EPIL by NGOs in order to understand potential flaws and deficiencies of NGO participation in this relatively new field of environmental litigation. The article sets out by exploring EPIL as a legal pathway for the public to become involved in China's environmental governance. It then analyzes the legal provision of environmental litigation in China before critically examining several instances of EPIL initiated by NGOs between 2015 and 2019. This article finds that NGOs show weaknesses in their current EPIL practice, including in case selection and litigation risk assessment, but are willing to test and potentially expand the scope of EPIL into new areas of environmental protection such as noise pollution and renewable energy. It concludes that these weaknesses and strengths of NGO involvement in EPIL reflect the constantly evolving landscape of environmental governance and environmental litigation in China.