Judicial Reform In China A Comin'?

how does the allocation of the judiciary work in China? Who decides which judges and prosecutors go where? Is it province-based or regional? In Italy it is regional and sometimes national. Could that be one of the steps to "geo-political" independence? A more decentrated allocation of judges and prosecutors could be one steady step? some light for me?

I don't think that the CCP will push forward with the agenda described in the article. Perhaps the official recognizes the danger of the frustrations and injustice that exists in the rural countryside. However, to make a change such as what he described, I think, is like a legal Great Leap Forward. There are too many obstacles in the way to really see this through. It seems to me that it is assuming that a rule of law actually exists. There is also the problem of the central authority trying to assert its power to a local level, which is already hard enough in other areas. Local influence will override any demand from the center to enforce such legal reforms.

I am very pessimistic that the local courts can be an effective method for rural areas to address their grievances. The rural poor do not believe in the fairness of the courts or the existence of the rule of law. The best that they hope for now is that their pleadings will fall upon a sympathetic official's ear. Any effort for legal reform will be too little too late. It would be better to spend the political energy and resources in combatting corruption in the countryside, assuming that it can be fought politically. It can also be argued that corruption would have to be fought first anyway in order to bring any kind of legal reform to the local level.

Dan wrote: "the idea of moving government cases to outside regions where local officials would be presumed to have less influence does make some sense." I agree, though I also agree with Joseph's point, that such reforms would increase the power of the central government. But this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, since the central government is, generally speaking, more enlightened and progressive than many local governments.

On a slightly different matter, I just finished reading a new book called "China Modernizes", just published a few months ago by Oxford University Press, written by an American lawyer named Randall Peerenboom. It's by far the best book on today's China that I have to date come across - his arguments about the nature of present day China mirror mine very closely (see my piece titled "On the nature of present day Chinese governance and society") though he draws upon different (but similar) evidence to support his views. A very impressive empirical study, and one that I highly recommend.

And finally, for those of you who have been reading Sinocidal lately, I would like to point out that the writer calling him or herself Chou Chou made a rather serious mistake when attributing me to comments made on the China Daily forum about the impact of McDonald's food on the Chinese populace. Chou Chou writes:

"Mark, the smell of schoolboy faeces still clinging to his hair, seems to blame McDonalds for all the present ills of China."

Not true. I did NOT write those comments on China Daily. I have not left comments on China Daily since last October/November.

For the record, the views expressed on China Daily attributed to me by Chou Chou do not even reflect my own views on the matter.

It's nice to see that people are still talking about me after all this time though, and that they're still accusing other people of being me.

For those of you who do want to know my views about China, you can visit my website, or, if you're interested in my views on Tibet, you can go to www.pbs.org/chinainside

You will not find accurate information about me and my views on Sinocidal though, that's for sure.

Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April, 4, 2007.

I don't think that the central government is inherently more progressive than local governments, however a system of "checks and balances" in which central and local powers are balanced seems to be useful in keeping both in line.

It is a good move for judicial reform, but I doubt how much justice they can bring to each individual against government bodies by allowing such lawsuits outside the government body's authority. The government may try a few lawsuits like that to show people they care about individual�s legal rights and interests, equal before the law, but there are hundreds or thousands of such cases carrying on under their eyes, and they probably choose to do nothing. To me, without further political reform, such judicial reform most likely is another empty promise as if they have done with their anti-corruption campaign for the last ten years, losing more than it�s gaining.

Mr. Wang --

You are correct regarding the goal of increasing central power as the center is viewed (I think rightfully so) as less corrupt.

nanheyangrouchuan --

Change has to start somewhere. Changes in institutions can lead to changes in personnel.

nanheyangrouchuan --

What do the fake nhs say?

PiPi --

No way am I going to get in the middle of this feud (or any other feud, for that matter).

"We should be cheering on change in China, not poo-pooing it. Not all change will lead to improvements, but change that seeks improvement, even if it fails, can be a good thing."

Too bad most of the "change" in china is window dressing to satisfy whiny westerners. The vast majority of people with some power have no intention of making changes that decrease their power, their wealth or make them accountable.

Hui Mao --

Very good point re the number of cases and their meaning. I concur.

I would say this at least should be a genuine attempt instead of an empty promise. I don't think they can turn a blind eye to the growing numbers of mass incidents. They certainly feel the pressure and as a result have a real urge to do something about it. Without an effective judicial outlet, there is no buffer zone between the government office buildings and the disenfranchised crowds. And the police and paramilitary police brutalities help create a dangerous hissing pressure cooker. So they now realize that giving people a day in the court is the right way to go.

The reason that all concerned should be at least cautiously optimistic is that without an option to organically overhaul the system, what you should be glad to see is that it is going to evolve piecemeal along a right direction.

To constitute a court like this, I think the guiding principle is to delink the court with provincial governments and below,and therefore achieve the maximum independence from provincial and local governments. To these ends, the court should be a direct division of the PSC, which means members of the court should be appointed by chief justice of PSC, on PSC payroll, and of course sit in Beijing. I agree that this arrangement would essentially increase the central government power. But I think it's a good thing for the similar reasons some of you have already pointed out. There are some other issues I haven't quite thought through yet. The court sitting in Beijing may not have local expertise. And whether a centralized court can handle large volume of litigations is a concern, too. Local expertise issue might be resolved by randomly picking a member of the provincial high court when a particular province is involved. Volume can be controlled by denying jurisdiction for cases involving potential damages under certain level.

Finally, whatever setup you have, corruption has to be curtailed and court decisions have to have teeth.

Serwat --

I am healthy again and would like to think I am back. I think you are right about my recent frustrations which I think are due in part to my venturing too far afield from the core of this blog. Thanks for your comment; I appreciate it.

Mark --

I will read it. Note how the lawyer in me prevents me from saying when.

How's this for a short term solution: Would you do a guest review on this blog?