。6， Peking University Law Review. Volume 6, Issue 1

Author: Editorial Committee of "Peking University Law Review"
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-01-01
Features: China, whether as a nation or as a society, is undergoing tremendous transformation. Only by understanding the judicial process within this macrobackground can we gain a profound insight into the current state of justice and its future trends, thereby formulating recommendations that truly align with China's national conditions and meet the needs of its people. "Peking University Law Review" has long been concerned with issues in China's judiciary. Since its inception in 1999, it has held thematic discussions on topics such as "China's Adjudication Committee System" and "Law in Rural Chinese Society." Over the following years, it has continuously published articles on judicial issues. The emphasis on judicial matters is evident in other magazines and publications as well, which indeed reflects the numerous shortcomings in China's judiciary and the critical role of justice in the country's rule of law. This thematic discussion once again focuses on this issue. The articles in this issue primarily consist of partial completed works and commissioned contributions from the academic symposium "The Judicial Process in a Transforming Society," organized by "Peking University Law Review" on May 15, 2004.
The article by Wang Yaxin is titled "Civil Adjudication in Practice (II) — The Operation of First Instance Civil Procedures in Five Intermediate Courts." Professor Wang Yaxin has always emphasized the investigation of social life behind the law. His earlier work, "Around the Acquisition and Allocation of Judicial Resources," published in the first issue of Volume 2 of "Peking University Law Review," resulted from a thorough study of civil and economic adjudication in grassroots courts. This article shifts the focus to intermediate courts. The "Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Civil Procedure Evidence" is regarded as a culmination of experience in the reform of adjudication methods. The article examines whether the procedural operations of the targeted court changed before and after its implementation on April 1, 2002, and the nature of such changes.
Chen Ruihua's article, "Impartial Adjudicators — A Study on Recusal and Changes in Jurisdiction," explores the two systems of "recusal" and "changes in jurisdiction" in criminal procedure. Using logical reasoning and relevant case studies, the author identifies the problems encountered in the judicial practice of these systems. Subsequently, the author traces the theoretical origins of these systems, proposing that "the neutrality and impartiality of adjudication" are both requirements and guarantees of fair trial and the common foundation of both "recusal" and "changes in jurisdiction" systems. From the perspective of procedural justice, the author reexamines these systems. Furthermore, the author proposes his own ideas for reforming and restructuring these systems from the aspects of "reconfiguring the rights of action and adjudication" and "procedural sanctions," reflecting on the limitations of system design.
Yi Yanyou served as the discussant for Professor Chen Ruihua at the May symposium. His article, "The Legitimacy of Judicial Authority — Examining the Flaws of Criminal Procedure from the Perspective of Recusal," is a commentary and extension of Professor Chen's work. Fu Yulin's article, "Preliminary Investigation Report on the Status of Grassroots Legal Services in China — A Window Through Rural Grassroots Legal Service Offices," is an initial outcome of the "Current Status and Development of Grassroots Legal Services in China" project. This report focuses on research in the "quasi-judicial" field. Through methods such as literature review, seminars, individual interviews, and field or participant observation, the author investigated the basic structures of grassroots legal service offices and judicial offices in three cities—ABC—across Hubei, Sichuan, and Shanxi provinces. The study also examined their interactions with judicial offices, mediation committees, legal aid centers, and law firms, forming the broader judicial context. The preliminary findings suggest that allowing grassroots legal workers, as a lower-tier service group, to exist at certain levels and within certain scopes is not only necessary and feasible in China's current context but may also be perpetually necessary in a large country like China.
Hou Meng's article, "The Reproduction of the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Knowledge System — Taking the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Process in Economic Regulation as an Example," points out that behind judicial reforms lies the reproduction of the judicial knowledge system. Therefore, the entire judicial system must address the phenomenon of judges monopolizing judicial knowledge production or judges and a few interest groups oligopolizing it. The knowledge of the Supreme People's Court in handling judicial issues is incomplete. The author highlights the influence on the Supreme People's Court's judicial knowledge from competitive strategic forces (information sources or perspective sources), experts (thinking), and the media (value judgments). The author argues that the judicial market should be open to everyone and that the Supreme People's Court should establish its own judicial knowledge tradition.
This issue's thematic discussion follows the title of the May academic symposium, as all articles are related to the evolving judicial process in China. Justice Cardozo of the U.S. Supreme Court once likened the judicial process to "brewing a compound," where judges use the power of "logic, history, custom, and utility" to achieve the highest ideals of the judicial process—judges creating law. The "judicial process" we refer to here is not entirely the same as the one described by Cardozo. In China, judges apply the law and, to some extent, create it, and this process is also part of the law's realization. Judges and courts, both proactive and passive, within the broader judicial process, under the constraints of norms, systems, ideals, rationality, knowledge, and various intertwined social forces, will ultimately go where?