Do Judges in China Follow Wrongly Decided Precedents?—An Empirical Study

The development of China’s international civil procedure should correspond to the development of the country’s reform and opening to the outside world. As a large economic country, China needs to draw on international civil procedures to guarantee its worldwide interests; and as a large country with the rule of law, it needs to improve the level of its judicial services and enhance the market attraction of its judicial system in global dispute resolution. Given that a country’s judicial system is an important element in measuring its comprehensive competitiveness, the global competitiveness of our international civil procedure is one of the goals to be pursued in the reform of Chinese judicial system. In order to raise the level of Chinese international civil procedure, China should emphasize the idea of the judicial system of a large country and prioritize its competitiveness, service orientation and cooperative approach to dispute resolution. In addition, it should focus on the following reforms: firstly, establishing a specialized system of international civil jurisdiction, with an increase in matters for competitive jurisdiction; secondly, enhancing China’s specialist services capacity in international civil actions, highlighting the expedient protection given to the rights of the parties concerned and stressing the professional development of judicial bodies in the commercial field; and thirdly, strengthening international judicial cooperation and facilitating the global movement of Chinese judgments.

This study employed a difference‐in‐differences model to examine whether judicial reform could affect corporate employment, using the establishment of China's circuit courts in 2015 as a quasi‐natural experiment. It found that the reform of the judicial system enhanced corporate employment significantly. The effects were stronger in enterprises with limited external financing and those situated in provinces with high levels of administrative intervention. Mechanism analysis suggested that the reform encouraged firms to pursue litigation more actively, reducing local judicial protectionism. It also promoted employment by easing financing constraints, expanding firm output, and improving productivity. A cost–benefit analysis showed that the circuit courts were highly efficient in promoting employment. Further analysis found that local state‐owned enterprises tended to increase labor input by cutting wages and capital investment whereas private firms raised capital investment to facilitate capital deepening.

The European Union (EU) enlargement policy has been considered the most effective tool of the EU as an “EU external governance” in exporting democracy, the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, and other values on which the EU is founded in third countries. Considering the lessons learned from previous accession cases– especially Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia, the EU approach to addressing the rule of law reforms early in the accession process shifted toward a bold strategy. This paper analyses the role of the EU as a promoter of judiciary reform in candidate countries, focusing on the vetting process in Albanian. The paper argues that a dilemma exists between legal compliance with EU standards and implementing reforms. While the EU, through judiciary reform, aims to transform the Albanian judiciary system in compliance with the Justice and Home Affairs acquis, political polarisation in Albania has hampered institutional set-up, effectiveness, independence, and the fight against corruption. Moreover, the vetting process has paralysed the judiciary system by increasing the backlog and delaying the length of proceedings. By adopting a dogmatic legal methodology, the paper provides a detailed theoretical discussion of the EU’s external dimension as a (legal) normative power and analyses the Europeanization of the judiciary system in Albania. Moreover, the paper assesses the impact of judiciary reform and discusses the extent to which judiciary reform in Albania is considered successful.

The paper examines the causes of judicial errors in administrative proceedings. It has been established that a judicial error in administrative proceedings is the result of judicial activity, which indicates the inability of the judiciary to effectively protect the rights, freedoms and interests of individuals, rights and interests of legal entities from violations by subjects of authority. A judicial error is recognized as an error regardless of the presence or absence of the fault of a particular judge who made a decision with an error made in it. The subject of the error, most often, makes it as a result of carelessness, self-confidence, unintentional actions, accidental error, etc. If a judge commits deliberate actions aimed at distorting the fundamental principles of administrative proceedings and grossly violating the rights, freedoms and interests of individuals or the rights and interests of legal entities, then he commits not a judicial error, but a criminal offense. Judicial errors are a serious obstacle to the effective functioning of the administrative justice system, as they provoke the occurrence of a number of consequences: loss of trust, resource costs, psychological losses. Judicial errors in administrative proceedings have a negative impact on the legal awareness of citizens, their psychological state, undermine the authority of the state in general and judicial bodies in particular, provoke significant financial and time costs, etc. In order to cope with the problem of judicial errors in administrative proceedings, the domestic justice system should strive to: eliminate defects in material and procedural legislation; reducing the workload of judges of administrative courts; bringing the number of judges and court staff to their regular number, etc.

This paper examines changes that occurred in the Polish lawmaking process associated with primary legislation (laws and amendments) affecting the court system. It uses the database of 126 laws adopted in the 1991–2019 timeframe (Ist to VIIIth term), that modified either (i) the law on common courts system or (ii) the law on the National Council of Judiciary – two legal acts constituting the backbone of the general jurisdiction courts system. A significant extension of our research is the coverage of RIAs and assessment of their quality. Analysis documents the transition from a rather consensual and deliberative law-making process to the partisan voting machine. That, in turn, enabled so-called 'reforms' of the Polish judiciary, implemented after 2015.

This article examines the reform of the justice system in Albania since 2016 through the lens of the accession procedure to the European Union and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in individual cases against Albania. The first part is devoted to the analysis of the general context in which the reform of the justice system in 2016 was implemented in Albania and examines its main elements. The relevant reports of the European Commission regarding Albania are considered in this part with a focus on recommendations concerning the judiciary.The second part analyses the key judgements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the process of reforming the justice system in Albania since 2016 based on individual applications of judges and prosecutors who were dismissed from their positions as a result of the re-evaluation procedure. These judgements include the following cases: Besnik Cani v. Albania, Gashi and Gina v. Albania, Nikëhasani v. Albania, Sevdari v. Albania, and Xhoxhaj v. Albania. In particular, the following aspects were considered: the status of bodies created to reassess judges and prosecutors, their independence and impartiality; as well as the proportionality of the interference in the private life of the applicants.Finally, the article aims to assess the impact of judgements in specific cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the accession procedure of Albania and other candidate states to the European Union. The article scrutinizes the reports of the European Commission regarding other candidate states in terms of the recommendations provided related to the judiciary and the rule of law. The article demonstrates the interrelation between the accession process to the European Union and the relevant judgements of the European Court of Human Rights analysing the judgements and key reports concerning other candidate countries. In particular, the reports of the European Commission concerning Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are considered. It is argued that the conclusions obtained in individual cases regarding the reform of the justice system in Albania should be interpreted in a much broader context of the procedure of accession tothe European Union of other candidate states.

Today’s legal system of China has faced many significant changes. One of the often mentioned challenges concerns the appropriate management and handling of an abundance of new and complex disputes. Due to the popularity of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Western countries, it began to draw people’s attention when designing a Chinese dispute resolution policy. With this fact being known and considering China’s domestic political climates and the Chinese practice of using non-confrontational means to solve disputes, one circle of scholars suggested that court mediation (fayuantiaojie, 法院调解) should be enhanced. In June 2009, this suggestion was adopted by the Supreme People’s Court. Concerning the challenges of courts handling disputes in recent years, the SPC has placed a priority on practice of court mediation. However, China’s situation differs from the West, and the existing scholarship lacks empirical research on court-connected ADR. This is especially true in southwest China. Thus, it is quite necessary for legal scholars to assess and examine the operation of court mediation in today’s southwest China in order to answer whether it is a feasible institutional arrangement in the southwest context. This will not only enhance our understanding of the nature and rationale of court-connected ADR at the intellectual level but will also perfect its performance in the future.
\n
\nThe purpose of this research is to contribute an empirical study on court mediation and attempts to paint a more complicated and nuanced picture of ADR in southwest China’s context rather than simply copying Western legal narratives to explain China’s legal reality. More specifically, through empirically examining the process of court mediation and the implementation of the relevant policies in practice, this dissertation intends to 1) investigate how court mediation is carried out in southwest China’s grassroots courts in order to answer whether it is a feasible institutional arrangement in the southwest context as well as what the problems are in practice, if any,2) provide suggestions for clarifying and redesigning China’s mediation law in the future and introduce a regionalism-based paradigm to China’s legal studies and dispute resolution policy design as an alternative.
\n
\nBased on empirical studies in the grassroots courts of Yunnan, this dissertation argues that although court mediation now is driven by “politically correct pragmatism”, it is feasible in southwest grassroots China due to the social context and the social embedment of the locals. However, the current “Mediation First” policy is still problematic because it may over-simplify Chinese complexity in the dispute resolution domain and has gone far away from the spirit of ADR by pursuing political goals as its priority and overemphasizing mediation’s role. The way to solve the problem is not to simply or ideologically restrict or limit court mediation; alternatively, it is necessary to establish more straightforward and uncompromising rules to exclude ill-suited cases from being mediated in order to improve its performance. Now is also the time to re-examine China’s nationalized, generalized paradigm concerning both China’s legal constructions and scholarship, and attempt to open up a new regionalism-based paradigm when analyzing China’s legal issues.

This chapter examines the open government initiative and the application of open government principles to the court system in China in order to illustrate what “open judiciary”—and, ultimately, an “open state”—looks like in a relatively closed society. The authors present a comprehensive background of China's open government initiative and related court reform efforts, along with critical analysis of trends in “Guiding Cases” (“GCs”), de facto binding precedents released by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of China, and subsequent cases (“SCs”) that cite GCs. Drawing on these theoretical and empirical studies, the authors discuss the prospects of leveraging China's open government and open judiciary efforts to develop an open state in the country and identify key factors for promoting open judiciary in other closed societies around the world.

The principle of “let the adjudicator judge, let the judge be accountable” lies at the core of judicial accountability system reform. Since the publication of the People’s Court The Fourth Five-Year Reform Outline of the People's Court System (2021-2025) issued by the People’s Court, over a decade of exploration and practical application has yielded significant progress. The principle of “let the adjudicator judge” has been more thoroughly implemented, ensuring that adjudicative power of statutory trial organizations, such as Sole Judges and Collegial Panels, is fully upheld. In contrast, the principle of “let the judge be accountable” has lagged behind due to constraints such as the construction of responsibility norms and the interpretation of the scope of accountability. These obstacles have led to ambiguities and inconsistencies in aligning adjudicative powers and responsibilities, ultimately compromising judicial quality and efficiency, inconsistencies in the application of the law, and minor cases triggering significant public sentiment. The internal essence of the "let the judge be accountable" principle lies in building a judicial accountability system that seamlessly integrates the clarification of responsibilities, the definition of accountability, and the enforcement of consequences. To address these issues, the mechanism for "letting the judge be accountable" should be enhanced by clarifying the logical prerequisite of accountability and responsibilities, solidifying the forms of accountability, and enhancing procedures for enforcing accountability. Additionally, by leveraging big data technology, strengthening digital empowerment, and advancing the modernization of adjudication management, we can advance the modernization of adjudication work.

Futuristically people are reluctant to settle their cases through the Courts. Not It is not uncommon for sharp criticism to be raised that the judiciary is considered slow and long, very expensive and unresponsive to justice, formalistic and technical (rechnically), and less uptodate, so that it is less efficient and effective, making it difficult for the public to obtain justice through the courts. Obtaining justice through the courts. Technological developments are utilized by the Supreme Court as a solution and at the same time to implement the principle of simple, fast, and light cost. This research is descriptive analytical, normative juridical and empirical juridical approach, analyzed qualitatively. Qualitatively analyzed. The results of the study found that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia creates a court that fulfills the principles of simple, fast and light cost through a new innovation called Electronic through a new innovation called Electronic Court (E-Court) and E-Litigation, through Supreme Court Regulation No. 3/2018 Jo. Number 3 of 2018 Jo. Perma No. 1 of 2018 and through a Cooperation Agreement between the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Number 402/DJU/HM.01.1/4/2020, Number KEP-17/E/Ejp/04/2020, Number PAS 08.HH.05.05.05.05. PAS-08.HH.05.05 of 2020, but in practice there are still many obstacles that need to be addressed. Facilities and infrastructure and immediately revise the procedural law, both the Law on Civil Procedure procedural laws both the Civil Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Law. Keywords : Judicial System Reform; Modern Court; Electronic Court.

The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments were aimed at reducing or eliminating water pollution discharges at point sources. All discharges were to reach compliance by way of the best practical technology (BPT) by 1977 and by the best available technology (BAT) that is economically achievable by 1983. A review of this legislation and subsequent variance regulation reveals that, while the intent was for uniformity during the pre-BAT clean-up stage, industries have avoided or delayed compliance with five-year interim permits, through Environmental Protection Agency exemptions, or by demonstrating that individual discharge factors were fundamentally different. The failure to meet the BPT deadline, often on the grounds that compliance will lead to unemployment, indicates the stricter BAT limitations are even less likely to be met. If the BAT goals for water quality are to be reached, Congress must explicitly require dischargers to comply or go out of business.

The emergence of new technologies offers wide-ranging opportunities for the development of the judicial system. Technological advances are completely modernizing the judicial and legal system, creating a channel for judicial reform — smart justice, an area of innovation in China’s judicial technologies. Smart justice represents a modern leap forward in human legal civilization, blending judicial system reform and information technology revolution. In the new era in China, significant changes are observed in the judicial system, including smart courts and smart procuratorates, supported by important legal norms and policies, with special attention given to fundamental improvement of the existing legal system. This reality, organized by the state, represents a form of “Chinese innovation”. Innovative development of the judicial system, combined with a deep synthesis of intelligent technologies, creates an objective basis for the application of intelligent systems in the judicial process. However, the dual nature of AI technologies means that while increasing judicial efficiency and reshaping the judicial process, intelligent systems also face the impact and challenge of traditional legal ethical concepts. Due to insufficient rational understanding of the limits of application of intelligent systems, there is a violation of their supportive role. It is necessary to strictly control the application of intelligent systems within certain limits, using technological rationality to eliminate deviations from value rationality, using value rationality to counteract the influence of technological rationality, correcting and regulating the limits of application of intelligent systems. Considering the position of instrumentalism and the auxiliary status of AI in the judicial process under the influence of rationalism as the main principle, limiting the scenarios for the application of AI in justice, establishing regulation of usage scenarios, improving the model of regulating the restriction of AI application, ultimately smoothing the tension between justice and artificial intelligence technologies, and exploring a rational path for justice.

The boundary between court intervention and financial supervision should be reasonable. On interest rate regulation, there was a balanced power allocation between judiciary and administration. On the one hand, the People’s Bank of China （PBC） was authorized by the Law on PBC to independently implement interest rate policies on financial loans. Due to the fact that interest rate control conflicts with market mechanism, the PBC initiated interest rate marketization reform on RMB financial loans and completely removed rate ceilings and floors. It turned its role from ex ante control to ex post regulation, including interest rate monitor, special inspection, and administrative penalty. On the other hand, the Supreme People’s Court of China （SPC） has historically acquired jurisdiction on the interest rate of informal loans. It made the four-time interest rate rule” and ceiling of 24% rule”, and restricted its authority to informal loans. As the policy changes, however, the judiciary expanded its jurisdiction to the interest rate of financial loans. This power expansion is embodied in two ways: abstract rulemaking and case-based adjustment. Regarding abstract rulemaking, the SPC issued unified requirements to limit financial interest rates by judicial documents such as the Several Opinions on Further Strengthening Financial Adjudication, which unfavorably impacts the power allocation between judiciary and administration. The formal financial market with high compliance does not require uniform rate control because interest rate liberalization is beneficial for reflecting real credit costs and optimizing resource allocation. If a money-borrower has a high credit risk, the lender would require a high rate to cover this risk, which is not necessarily unreasonable. It is problematic for the judiciary to adopt a one-size-fits-all” strategy to uniformly restrict financial rates, as the judicial control lacks formal rationality, substantive rationality or explicit delegation. The abstract rule-making of SPC violates the principle of judicial deference” and should be rectified. For case-based interest rate intervention, local courts may adjust financial rates according to discretion in adjudication. Empirical study in this article finds that court intervention on financial interest rates is not consistent. Whether the court steps to intervene is influenced jointly by several factors, including loan type （personal or business loan）, purpose （for consuming or commercial use）, amount, and maturity. In case-based interventions, the court may refer to the interest rate rules on informal loans, apply the principle of fairness, exert adjustment of overdue rates, or implement the policy of financial consumer protection or other public policies. The tendency of intervention should be corrected when the intervention lacks reasoning and causes confusion. Judicial intervention in financial loan interest rates should be limited to case adjustment under the framework of legal dogmatics. Intervention should be exercised exceptionally rather than routinely. In order to achieve a higher level of rule of law, specific rules should be applied preferably to abstract principles, while public policies should be converted to practical rules before application.

Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects. Management, Partnerships and Effects in the Netherlands and the UK

Reforming Private Securities Litigation in China: The Stock Market Has Already Cast its Vote