Research on the Basic Theories of China's Judicial System

Author: Chen Guangzhong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-06-01
Features: In December 2003, our research group won the Major Project of the Ministry of Education's Philosophy and Social Sciences Research through competition. As the chief expert of the group, I felt both happy and worried. Happy because our group received recognition and trust from the expert evaluation committee and relevant leaders, and worried because it was not easy to complete this project, as if it were a heavy burden. This project has been challenging since the argumentation phase of the application, with two key terms that were difficult for me to grasp: "Chinese judicial system" and "basic theory," which contain profound and complex theoretical issues. Of course, since we have won this project, we must proceed with unwavering determination. In the past year and a half, we have mainly carried out the following work according to the plan requirements of the approved application:
1. In March 2004, we held a project launch meeting and divided the team into three groups: the first group was responsible for general theories, the second for the judicial system, and the third for the litigation system. Each group had two to three members, with appropriate divisions of labor among the team members.
2. We conducted domestic and international investigations and empirical research. Abroad, we went to the UK because the criminal justice reform in 2003 corrected the traditional criminal justice philosophy of the UK. The reforms of specific systems to some extent shook the fundamental principles of the UK's judicial system, attracting worldwide attention. It was necessary for us to understand the specific content and motivations of this reform. Domestically, we conducted empirical research on two important issues in the pre-trial procedure (bail for minors and discretionary non-prosecution) and carried out a questionnaire survey on the concept of judicial fairness, aiming to strengthen our understanding of the current state of the Chinese judicial system. We believe that without a thorough understanding of the current state of the Chinese judicial system, it would be difficult to complete this project.
3. To lay the foundation for the formal writing of the three parts of this project, we conducted thematic research on some key issues first. Most members of the research group have written papers of considerable significance, and some of our thematic research results have already been published in relevant journals. Based on the thematic research, we also held a special academic symposium within the research group. To showcase the mid-term results of this project, we compiled most of the unpublished papers, a few published papers, and reports on domestic and international research into this book for publication. It should be noted that the views in the papers in this book only represent the personal views of the authors, and some views are not entirely consistent with each other. When we formally form the final results of the project, we will not only provide systematic arguments but also ensure consistency in format and views. Personally, I feel that despite the efforts and achievements of our research group, as a major project, there is still a gap between the expected requirements. Only by working diligently and dedicating another two years can we possibly complete this major project.