Abstract
An adjudicative committee (AC) is a special statutory committee established in each Chinese court. This committee is special in the sense that it is not only responsible for judicial administration, but also empowered to decide individual cases. It is thus both an administrative and judicial body within the court. The adjudication function of this committee has aroused heated debate among scholars and practitioners and triggered a series of institutional reforms. Until now, however, the existing literature has offered little insight into the impacts of institutional reforms on judicial discretion within the AC proceedings. Discretion in this book is viewed in terms of decision-making; to be more precise, it is understood as the freedom to make decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The AC is heavily influenced by the notion of maintaining Party control over adjudicative work from the former Soviet Union.
- 2.
The 1954 Organic Law was replaced by the 1979 Organic Law of the People’s Court. The 1979 Organic Law brought about only minor changes to the provisions of the AC, such as the introduction of democratic centralism as the working principle that governs the committee.
- 3.
Administrative procedure law is closely related to civil procedure law. Art. 3 of the 1982 Civil Procedure Law provides that the 1982 Civil Procedure Law applies to administrative procedures. Although the 1991 Civil Procedure Law does not have an equivalent clause, art. 97 of the 2000 SPC Interpretations on the Application of the Law of Administrative Procedure provides that the court may apply the administrative as well as civil procedure laws in administrative procedures.
- 4.
The Organic Law of the People’s Courts and the Criminal Procedure Law are different from the Civil and Administrative Procedure Laws. The latter two allow the Court President to decide whether it is necessary to refer a case to the AC for decision, even if he finds definite errors in the effective judgment.
- 5.
Pimentel called functional independence and accountability to be personal (subjective) or true independence and accountability (Pimentel 2009).
- 6.
The organizational choice theory is viewed as a simple extension of the individual decision theory (Feldman and March 1981, p. 172).
- 7.
He emphasizes that strong discretion does not mean that he is free to make decisions without recourse to any general standards, such as sense and fairness, “but only that his decision is not controlled by a standard furnished by the particular authority we have in mind when we raise the question of discretion” (Dworkin 1967, p. 34). This emphasis conciliates his seamless law system and strong discretion argument.
- 8.
Feldman points out three similar issues as the limits to the classic rational model, including the ability to process sufficient information, the existence of a unitary participant, and the specification of goals prior to making decisions. In addition, he recognizes the sequential order as the final limitation.
- 9.
Phenomenology is one of the two major theoretical perspectives which have dominated the social sciences. Compared to positivists, phenomenologists are committed to understanding social phenomena from the actor’s view rather than seeking the causes of social phenomena apart from the subjective states of individuals.
References
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
BPC of Nanshan District Shenzhen City. (2007). Shenzhenshi nanshanqu renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo guize [Provisions of the Basic People’s Court of Nanshan District Shenzhen City on the work of the adjudicative committee].
BPC of Xiuyu District Putian City. (2002). Putianshi Xiuyuqu renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo guize [Provisions of the Basic People’s Court of Xiuyu District Putian City on the work of the adjudicative committee]. http://www.xyfy.gov.cn/gzzd/gzzd/swhgz.htm. Accessed 16 July 2008.
Central Executive Committee of Chinese Soviet Republic. (1931). Zhonghua suwei’ai gongheguo zhongyang zhixing weiyuanhui xunling (diliuhao) – chuli fangeming anjian he jianli sifa jiguan de zanxing chengxu [Order of the Central Executive Committee of the Chinese Soviet Republic (No. Six): Provisional procedure for disposition of anti-revolutionary cases and establishment of judicial branches].
Central People’s Government. (1951). Renmin fayuan zanxing zuzhi tiaoli [Provisional organic regulations of the people’s courts].
Chen, R. (1996). Xiuzhenghou de zhongguo xingshi susong fadian – cong xingshi sifa guoji biaozhun jiaodu de fenxi [Amended Chinese criminal procedure law – From the perspective of international criteria of criminal justice]. Xiandai faxue [Modern Law Science], (5), 15–20.
Chen, R. (1998). Zhengyi de wuqu – ping fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu [Misunderstanding of Justice – Reflection on adjudicative committees in courts]. Beida falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 381–412.
Chen, W. (2005). Sifa gaige shinian jiantao [Reflection on the judicial reform in the past ten years]. In M. Zhang (Ed.), Gaige sifa: zhongguo sifa gaige de huigu yu qianzhan [Reforming the judiciary: The retrospect and prospects of judicial reform in China]. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press.
Chen, G., & Puruifangting, D. (Eds.). (1998). Lianheguo xingshi sifa zhunze yu zhongguo xingshi fazhi [The United Nations standards and China’s legal system of criminal justice]. Beijing: Law Press.
Cheng, X. (1999). Shenpan weiyuanhui taolun jueding ge’an zhidu de quexian [Defects of cases discussed and decided by adjudicative committees]. Faxue zazhi [Law, Science Magazine], (2), 26–27.
Christie, G. C. (1968). The model of principles. Duke Law Journal, 17(4), 649–669.
Clarke, D. C. (1993, March 22–24). Methodologies for research in Chinese law. Paper presented at the conference on Chinese law: A re-examination of the field, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law.
Connor, S. D. O., & Jones, R. A. (2008). Reflections on Arizona’s judicial selection process. Arizona Law Review, 50(1), 15–24.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Dworkin, R. M. (1967). The model of rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 14–46.
Feldman, M. (1992). Social limits to discretion: An organizational perspective. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of discretion (Oxford socio-legal studies, pp. 163–183). Oxford: Clarendon.
Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186.
Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary powers: A legal study of official discretion. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1991). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge.
Gong, T. (2004). Dependent judiciary and unaccountable judges: Judicial corruption in contemporary China. China Review, 4(2), 33–54.
Handberg, R. (1994). Judicial accountability and independence: Balancing incompatibles? University of Miami Law Review, 49(1), 127–137.
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, K. (1992). The use of legal discretion: Perspectives from law and social science. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of discretion (Oxford socio-legal studies, pp. 11–46). Oxford: Clarendon.
He, W. (1998). Guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui de jidian pinglun [Comments on adjudicative committees]. Beida falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 365–374.
He, W. (1999). Shishi quxiao shenpan weiyuanhui [It is time to abolish adjudicative committees]. Zhongguo gaige [China Reform], (5), 31.
He, Q. (2002). Guanyu xinzhongguo yizhi Sulian sifa zhidu de fansi [Reflection on China’s transplantation of the legal system of the former Soviet Union]. Zhongwai faxue [Peking University Law Journal], 14(3), 257–280.
IPC of Jincheng City. (2006a). Jinchengshi zhongji renmin fayuan heyiting gongzuo guize [Work regulation of the Intermediate People’s Court of Jincheng City on Collegiate Bench]. http://jcfy.jconline.cn/3/2007-9-5/10001@20.htm. Accessed 9 Nov 2008.
IPC of Jincheng City. (2006b). Jinchengshi zhongji renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo guize [Provisions of the Intermediate People’s Court of Jincheng City on the work of the Adjudicative Committee]. http://jcfy.jconline.cn/3/2007-9-5/10001@19.htm. Accessed 15 July 2008.
IPC of Kunming City. (2001). Kunmingshi zhongji renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo xize (shixing) [Provisional provisions of the Intermediate People’s Court of Kunming City on the work of the adjudicative committee]. http://kmzy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=46. Accessed 15 July 2008.
Lempert, R. (1992). Discretion in a behavioral perspective: The case of a public housing eviction board. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of discretion (Oxford socio-legal studies, pp. 185–230). Oxford: Clarendon.
Li, X. (2000). Guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de jige wenti [Several issues with regards to adjudicative committees]. Dangdai faxue [Contemporary Law Review], (1), 16–19.
Lu, Z. (1998). Guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de sikao [Reflection on adjudicative committees]. Beida Falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 413–426.
March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
NPC. (1954). Renmin fayuan zuzhi fa [Organic law of the people’s courts].
NPC. (1989). Xingzheng susong fa [Administrative procedure law].
NPC. (1991). Minshi susong fa [Civil procedure law].
NPC (1996). Xingshi susong fa [Criminal procedure law].
NPCSC. (1979). Renmin fayuan zuzhi fa [Organic law of the people’s courts].
NPCSC. (1982). Minshi susongfa (shixing) [Civil procedure law (Provisional)].
Peerenboom, R. (2010). Judicial independence in China: Common myths and unfounded assumptions. In R. Peerenboom (Ed.), Judicial independence in China: Lessons for global rule of law promotion (pp. 69–94). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pimentel, D. (2009). Reframing the independence v. accountability debate: Defining judicial structure in light of judges’ courage and integrity. Cleveland State Law Review, 57(1), 1–33.
Russell, P. H. (2001). Toward a general theory of judicial independence. In P. H. Russell & D. M. O’Brien (Eds.), Judicial independence in the age of democracy: Critical perspectives from around the world (pp. 1–24). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Sarin, R. (1999). Review of debating rationality: Nonrational aspects of organizational decision making. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1182–1184.
Shapira, Z. (1998). Prescriptive models in organizational decision making. In J. J. Halpern & R. N. Stern (Eds.), Debating rationality: Nonrational aspects of organizational decision making (pp. 21–35). Ithaca: ILR Press.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Re-view, 65(2), 129–138.
Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.
Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.
Simon, H. A. (1997a). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1997b). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. III). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Southwest University of Political Science and Law Teaching and Research Division of the History of Legal System. (1982). Zhongguo fazhishi cankao ziliao huibian [Documentary collection of history of Chinese legal system]. Chongqing: Southwest University of Political Science and Law Teaching and Research Division of the History of Legal System.
SPC. (1993). Zuigao renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo guize [Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the adjudicative committee work].
SPC. (1998). Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu zhixing zhonghua renmin gongheguo xingshi susongfa ruogan wenti de jieshi [Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on several questions with regards to the enforcement of the criminal procedure law].
SPC. (2004). Renmin fayuan di’erge wunian gaige gangyao [Second five-year outline plan for the reform of the people’s courts].
SPC. (2010). Guanyu gaige he wanshan renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de shishi yijian [Implementation opinions on the reform and perfection of the people’s court adjudicative committee].
Su, L. (1998). Jiceng fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de kaocha ji sikao [Investigation and reflection on adjudicative committees of basic people’s courts]. Beida falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 320–364.
Sun, J. (2006). Lun woguo shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu cunfei yanjiu zhong de sanda shiwu [The study of three defects in the matter of abolishing trial committees]. Xingzheng yu fa [Public Administration and Law], (7), 127–129.
Tan, S. (1997). Lun sifa duili [Judicial independence]. Zhengfa luntan(zhongguo zhengfa daxue xuebao) [Tribune of Political Science and Law], (1), 27–35.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, H. (1991). Guanyu zhonghua renmin gongheguo minshi susongfa shixing xiugai cao’an de shuoming [Explanation of the amendment draft of the provisional law of civil procedure of the PRC]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2005–02/17/content_2587895.htm. Accessed 2 Apr 2012.
Wang, L. (2000). Sifa gaige yanjiu [Research on judicial reform]. Beijing: Law Press China.
Weber, M. (1977). Bureaucracy. In F. A. Kramer (Ed.), Perspectives on public bureaucracy: A reader on organization (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
Wu, X. (2004). Shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu yanjiu [Studies on adjudicative committee systems]. Guangxi shehui kexue [Guangxi Social Sciences], (9), 67–70.
Wu, Y. (2006). Shenpan weiyuanhui taolun de qunti juece jiqi guizhi [Group decision and regulation of adjudicative committee discussions]. Nanjing daxue falü pinglun [Nanjing University Law Review], 25(1), 185–201.
Xiao, S. (2007). Jiceng fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui “fangquan” gaige de guocheng yanjiu– yi dui mou fayuan faguan de fangtan wei sucai [Research on the process of decentralization of the judge committee– based on investigation in a district court]. Fazhi yu shehui fazhan [Law and Social Development], (2), 28–37.
Xiao, J., & Xiao, J. (2002). Shenpan weiyuanhui zhidukao: Jianlun quxiao shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de xianshi jichu [Research on the trial committee in China]. Beijing keji daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) [Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing (Social Science Edition)], 18(3), 60–66.
Xiong, X., Zhang, M., Yu, C., & Li, J. (Eds.). (1987). Zhonghua suwei'ai gongheguo caipanbu zanxing zuzhi ji caipan tiaoli [Provisional regulation of the department of courts of the Chinese Soviet Republic on the organization and adjudication]. In Zhongguo sifa zhidu ziliao xuanbian [Collection of Chinese judicial system documents]. Beijing: People’s Court Press.
Yue, L., & Chen, R. (1997). Xingshi chengxu gongzheng de guoji biaozhun yu xiuzheng hou de xingshi susong fa (shang) [International standards of the criminal procedure justice and the amended criminal procedure law (I)]. Zhengfa luntan [zhongguo zhengfa daxue xuebao] [Tribune of Political Science and Law], 3, 44–56.
Zhang, X., & Han, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Zhongguo geming fazhishi [A legal history of Chinese revolution]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Li, L. (2014). Introduction. In: Judicial Discretion within Adjudicative Committee Proceedings in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54041-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54041-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54040-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54041-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)