Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales

Author: Xu Xin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-01-01
Features: There has always been a saying that the British are conservative and traditional. The recent debate in the UK over wigs for judges and barristers over the past century seems to provide evidence. But after recently reviewing the Chinese translation of Xu Xin's "Civil Procedure Rules of England," this impression faded quickly. In the past, the UK was arguably the most resistant to the codification of litigation norms. After the 19th century, civil procedure codes were successively enacted in countries, even the same legal system of the United States enacted the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" (1848). However, the UK has always adhered to the tradition of non-codification. But just before the turn of the 21st century, the UK introduced a codified law—the "Civil Procedure Rules of England." In this code (including "Litigation Directions"), it fully reflects the UK's achievements in reforming its civil litigation system, particularly in improving litigation efficiency, reducing litigation costs, simplifying litigation procedures, and strengthening judges' management of litigation. The reform of civil litigation in the UK has made a historic leap. The reform of civil litigation can be said to be global. The reforms in Germany and the United States in the 1970s, and Japan's judicial reforms since the 1980s (including the reform of the civil litigation system), all reflect the trend of judicial system reforms in their respective societies. The inconsistency between developing societies and existing domestic litigation systems has formed a "reformative pressure difference." Social development is the basic driving force of reform, and only through reform can a system be adapted to the needs of social development. People always expect reforms to achieve the desired ideal results, and to achieve this, it is necessary to observe others' reform practices and learn from their achievements, as the ancients said, "A stone from a distant mountain can be used to polish jade." Due to cultural and economic dominance, in the field of civil litigation law in China, the systems and theories of the United States and Japan have been introduced more frequently, and the academic community is relatively familiar with them, while the systems of other countries are less understood. For example, some countries with very important historical significance in the history of litigation systems, such as Italy, Austria, and the United Kingdom. The UK has a highly developed litigation system, but within the country, there is little knowledge of its civil litigation. The earliest Chinese translation I saw of the UK's civil litigation system was a book titled "Civil Procedure in the United Kingdom" translated by my classmates in 1985. At that time, it was only a translation exercise as part of learning English and was not publicly published as an internal reference material. For many years, UK civil litigation seemed to have been forgotten. But it should not be forgotten or ignored. As the origin of the current Anglo-American civil litigation system, the UK's civil litigation system has played a very important role in the construction of the civil litigation system of the entire Anglo-American legal system. The UK's civil procedure code and its codification process, guiding ideology, and the reconstruction and revision of various specific systems have important reference value for the development and improvement of China's civil litigation system. Xu Xin's translation of "Civil Procedure Rules of England" is undoubtedly a text that allows us to directly interpret the UK's civil litigation system, especially the "Litigation Directions" section, which enables us to understand the basic structure of the UK's civil litigation system in more detail. Therefore, when Xu Xin told me he was translating this code, I had a strong desire to read it. Even in the early draft, I eagerly read it. Xu Xin had previously studied for a master's degree in civil litigation law at my alma mater—Southwest University of Political Science and Law. After graduation, although he worked in legal practice at financial institutions, he did not give up learning professional knowledge and continued to write. Before the publication of this book, he had already published another translation, "The Basic Right of Party Procedure Security and the Future of Civil Procedure" (Law Press, July 2000). My impression of Xu Xin is that he is energetic, thoughtful, and often "pops up" with new ideas and perspectives. This year, Xu Xin was admitted to Tsinghua University Law School and became my doctoral student. Upon entering the school, he gifted me this over 800,000-word Chinese translation of the "Civil Procedure Rules of England," which is also the best "gift" for the civil litigation law community. I have also translated books and codes and am well aware of the hardships of translation. Translation is a very laborious task, especially the translation of codes. This translation is undoubtedly the crystallization of Xu Xin's sweat and hard work. Of course, there may be some places in this translation that have not yet reached the level of "faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance," and as a non-foreign language major, this is inevitable. But I believe that Xu Xin will be able to reach a higher level in future translations.