The judicial system normally is considered as the final recourse of the public when their rights and privileges as citizens are, one way or another, infringed. In the case of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), a different set of outcomes may materialize. It must be emphasized that the legal system in the PRC constitutes a web of elements distinctive from the rest of the world. This unique attributes tend to significantly affect the decision making process of the courts in China. Particularly, it has been noted that the courts in China has become mere bodies with administrative functions in the government. This paper will be looking into the specific factors that contribute to this phenomenon.
In order to present a clear picture of the conditions surrounding the courts in PRC, one must first take into consideration the legal system in the country. Studies have noted that the legal framework of China is based on rule by law and not the conventional rule of law. (Orts 2001, 43) This means that in China, the law is a tool used by the state to enhance its powers. This also shows that the government in China is essentially over and above the confines of the laws of the land. With this observation, there is a distinct possibility that the interpretation of the laws in the Chinese setting tends to vary subjectively based on the position of the state.
Seeing this type of legal philosophy in use, one could imply that the courts in PRC possess very limited power. In the same regard, the structure of the legal system may also be considered as one of the main factors that contribute to this rather administrative attribute of the decision-making processes in the PRC courts. The constitution of the PRC indicates that the individual People’s Courts are created through appointment by respective People’s Congress. (Xisheng 2005) Thus, under the constitution of PRC, the People’s Congress has some level of control over these judicial bodies. This alone manifest that the administrative features of the decision making process as the courts answer to the corresponding strata of people’s congress. In return, it is inevitable that the decision-making of the courts tend to bend based on the political leanings of the congress.
Moreover, studies have pointed out the reality of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) constant interference in the judiciary. (GeChlik 2005, 100) For instance, there are some civil and administrative cases against the state that are shunned by the courts as per requests of the government officials and Party members in charge to address the grimy areas of business. (p101) Let us look at the predicament of the judges that hear cases that pushed through the actual legal procedures. These judges are appointed by the members of the people’s congress which by and large are concurrently a part of the Party. (Xisheng 2005) So long as the power to appoint is given to these individuals, so does the power to take away the judges from their position. This does not only point to the demise of a career in law and in the judicial branch of the government, it also equate to the termination of that person’s source of livelihood.
Another observation that has some level of influence on the conditions surrounding the decision-making processes is the rather fragmented attribute of the judiciary. The courts in PRC allows only for one appeal for the cases heard by the local courts. Thus, the court of second instance is essentially the last chance for the public to make a case. Added to the unique attribute of the PRC courts is the ability of the higher courts to call for either a retrial or a change of verdict if they deem that the case was misjudged or if the court of first instance made mistakes on the prescribed procedures. Once again, this shows that the judges on the local level are subjected to another set of superiors aside from the leaders of the local version of the people’s congress. The irony in this scenario is that the local courts’ decision, which is based primarily on the political influences and possible professional ramifications, may well be full of procedural flaws and errors in interpretations. These mistakes are then unavoidably and most definitely be seen by the higher courts. It is in these instances where a need for retrial or a change of verdict is found by the higher courts which indicate that the local court has to bear the weight of their predicament.
The unique attributes of the legal system in PRC contributes largely on the conditions surrounding the decision making process in courts. All these show signs of being administrative in nature because the local courts always have to answer to the whims and demands posed by both political and legal institutions. The rather twisted and convoluted pattern of power in the Chinese society has made judicial proceedings nothing short of a farce and a little close to theatric recitals. All in all, the lack of independence of the judicial system from the influence of the dominant parties in politics keeps the judges from actually doing their jobs of imposing just verdicts and fair judgments. In the end, the judicial color present in PRC essentially bestows harm on the general Chinese public. To some extent, the concept of what is just is significantly blurry on the PRC setting. As long as the political leaders can influence the judgments in the courts in China, they will essentially continue to make the definitive decisions in the judicial branch of the country.
References
GeChlik, M. (2005) “Judicial Reform in China: Lessons from China.” Columbia Journal of Asian Law. 19(1)
Orts, E. (2001) “The Rule of Law in China.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 34(1), 43.
Xisheng, Q. (2005) “Who Controls China’s Courts?”China Rights Forum.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment