Advertisement

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.

Keywords

Institutional Reform Civil Procedure Judicial Independence Adjudicative Committee Judicial Discretion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. 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].Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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].Google Scholar
  5. Central People’s Government. (1951). Renmin fayuan zanxing zuzhi tiaoli [Provisional organic regulations of the people’s courts].Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Christie, G. C. (1968). The model of principles. Duke Law Journal, 17(4), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Connor, S. D. O., & Jones, R. A. (2008). Reflections on Arizona’s judicial selection process. Arizona Law Review, 50(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  14. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Dworkin, R. M. (1967). The model of rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 14–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary powers: A legal study of official discretion. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  19. Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1991). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Gong, T. (2004). Dependent judiciary and unaccountable judges: Judicial corruption in contemporary China. China Review, 4(2), 33–54.Google Scholar
  21. Handberg, R. (1994). Judicial accountability and independence: Balancing incompatibles? University of Miami Law Review, 49(1), 127–137.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. He, W. (1998). Guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui de jidian pinglun [Comments on adjudicative committees]. Beida falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 365–374.Google Scholar
  25. He, W. (1999). Shishi quxiao shenpan weiyuanhui [It is time to abolish adjudicative committees]. Zhongguo gaige [China Reform], (5), 31.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Lu, Z. (1998). Guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu de sikao [Reflection on adjudicative committees]. Beida Falü pinglun [Peking University Law Review], 1(2), 413–426.Google Scholar
  33. March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. NPC. (1954). Renmin fayuan zuzhi fa [Organic law of the people’s courts].Google Scholar
  37. NPC. (1989). Xingzheng susong fa [Administrative procedure law].Google Scholar
  38. NPC. (1991). Minshi susong fa [Civil procedure law].Google Scholar
  39. NPC (1996). Xingshi susong fa [Criminal procedure law].Google Scholar
  40. NPCSC. (1979). Renmin fayuan zuzhi fa [Organic law of the people’s courts].Google Scholar
  41. NPCSC. (1982). Minshi susongfa (shixing) [Civil procedure law (Provisional)].Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Sarin, R. (1999). Review of debating rationality: Nonrational aspects of organizational decision making. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1182–1184.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Re-view, 65(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1997a). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1997b). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. III). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. SPC. (1993). Zuigao renmin fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui gongzuo guize [Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the adjudicative committee work].Google Scholar
  54. 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].Google Scholar
  55. SPC. (2004). Renmin fayuan di’erge wunian gaige gangyao [Second five-year outline plan for the reform of the people’s courts].Google Scholar
  56. 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].Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Tan, S. (1997). Lun sifa duili [Judicial independence]. Zhengfa luntan(zhongguo zhengfa daxue xuebao) [Tribune of Political Science and Law], (1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. 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.
  63. Wang, L. (2000). Sifa gaige yanjiu [Research on judicial reform]. Beijing: Law Press China.Google Scholar
  64. Weber, M. (1977). Bureaucracy. In F. A. Kramer (Ed.), Perspectives on public bureaucracy: A reader on organization (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. Wu, X. (2004). Shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu yanjiu [Studies on adjudicative committee systems]. Guangxi shehui kexue [Guangxi Social Sciences], (9), 67–70.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Zhang, X., & Han, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Zhongguo geming fazhishi [A legal history of Chinese revolution]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li Li
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations