People's Court Case Selection - 2005 Issue No. 2 (Total Issue No. 52)

Author: Supreme People's Court China Application Legal Research Institute
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2006-08-01
Features: Cultivating Case Awareness, Unveiling Judicial Wisdom, Building a Chinese Case Guidance System
Shen Degong
In recent years, our judges have increasingly realized that, in addition to writing research articles and research reports, compiling cases has become the most important medium for showcasing judicial wisdom and expressing legal insights. Writing papers requires certain conditions—hard work and time being essential, as well as academic thinking as a fundamental skill. However, judges are not scholars, researchers, or freelance writers. To cope with the growing caseload, most judges spend their days buried in case files. Therefore, without special interest and strong will, it is difficult for them to switch roles to write academic papers. However, judging cases, their primary duty, provides another avenue for judges to contribute to the rule of law—through writing excellent judgments and compiling guiding cases. Practice has shown that this stage for judges is vast. The tree of life is evergreen, and cases are its concrete manifestation. In the legal empire, cases are the (liànjiē) connecting statutes with reality, serving as carriers for passing on legal wisdom and embodying the spirit of the rule of law. With the progress of judicial reform, compiling cases has expanded beyond explaining and interpreting specific legal issues to encompass regulation, demonstration, reference, and guidance. During the development of the case guidance system, different terms have been used, such as reference cases, typical cases, important cases, new types of cases, judicial precedents, (pànlì), and guiding cases, among others. These terms themselves reflect the changing role of cases. Moreover, the value of cases has attracted the attention of academia, with an increasing number of scholars studying law from the perspective of cases, and more and more research outcomes emerging in this field. Thus, it can be said that the past decade has been a critical period for major achievements in China's rule-of-law construction and a significant stage for the vigorous development of case studies. These major changes are reflected in at least the following four aspects:
First, the institutional development of case guidance has made a fundamental leap. Although China's case guidance practice has existed for a long time, true institutionalization was achieved through two major leaps. The first leap was the 1999 Five-Year Reform Plan. Article 14 of the Plan stipulated: "Starting from 2000, typical cases discussed and decided by the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Committee on legal issues shall be published for reference by lower courts when adjudicating similar cases." Although the scope of reference case selection was relatively narrow at the time, the Plan established the reference to typical cases as a system for the first time, marking a summary and advancement in the development of the case cause over the past two decades, with great significance. The second leap was the Supreme People's Court's Second Five-Year Reform Plan. The second five-year plan established a standardized case guidance system, requiring the Supreme People's Court to play a role in unifying legal application standards, guiding lower courts' adjudications, and legal interpretation. This further consolidated the position of the case guidance system in China's judicial system.
The second major change is that the collection, compilation, publication, and development of cases have become an important branch of applied legal research. The volume of cases published in the Supreme People's Court Bulletin has gradually increased; the Supreme People's Court's various departments publish some complex and difficult cases they have adjudicated through their own publications; the Selected Cases of the People's Courts has established its position as a specialized publication for cases; the Comprehensive Collection of Adjudication Cases is a successful example of combining academic and judicial practice to develop case resources; the Judgment Collection of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China collects all judgment documents of the Supreme People's Court, serving as important materials for guidance, reference, learning, and research. In addition, almost all higher people's courts have compiled typical cases in their regions, and many intermediate and basic people's courts have also collected typical cases for learning and reference. Many legal journals have also set up special columns for case analysis. These research efforts and outcomes have provided a necessary foundation for establishing the case guidance system.
The third major change is that the practice of using typical cases to guide adjudications by courts across the country has become increasingly rich, and the practical role of cases has gradually strengthened. Courts such as the Jiangsu Higher People's Court, Tianjin Higher People's Court, Henan Higher People's Court, Fujian Higher People's Court, Kunming Intermediate People's Court, and Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court not only use typical cases as basic resources and materials for applied legal research but also emphasize their exemplary role, establishing the guiding function of typical cases as references for lower courts and other courts when adjudicating similar cases. Courts across the country have tried different models of case guidance systems, giving typical cases certain guiding and reference functions, cultivating case awareness among judges and lawyers. Judges have begun to collect relevant cases, lawyers have started using similar cases in court as arguments for the cases they represent, and legal researchers have begun to explore legal theories and methods embedded in cases to promote the development of law.
The fourth major change is that case research has been greatly deepened compared to the past. Cases twenty years ago focused more on "popular legal education" and publicity, while today's cases emphasize legal interpretation and the legal principles they contain. Through in-depth development, the superficial and shallow understanding of cases has been broken, and the role of cases in legal interpretation, discovering new legal rules, developing legal theories, enriching applied legal theory, perfecting legal department rules, and standardizing practical practices has been explored. It can be said that in-depth development has given cases a new life and has also become an important condition for establishing the case guidance system.
These major changes have provided favorable conditions and opportunities for further improving case work and establishing China's case guidance system. At the same time, we should also note that there are some problems in the current case work:
First, the authority of cases still needs to be improved. Any case has a natural exemplary effect, but how to select cases with correct legal application, legal interpretation close to legislative intent, and proper legal method use, and to determine their guiding role through appropriate procedures, is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed.
Second, the selection procedures and methods for cases still need to be standardized. Although the current "blossoming of all flowers" in case selection is not necessarily bad, it can easily lead to chaos and result in uneven quality of cases. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the various forces in case selection as soon as possible, establish strict selection standards, set up specialized selection institutions, and standardize selection procedures.
Third, the depth of case development still needs to be improved. Although some courts and research institutions have already conducted some in-depth development of cases, overall, the level of case development is still low and remains in a "primary stage." Case work across the country also urgently needs to be summarized, improved, and elevated.
Fourth, the case awareness of the legal community still needs to be further strengthened. Although the legal community has begun to pay attention to and use cases to some extent, it is far from meeting the needs of unifying legal systems and legal interpretation. Therefore, cultivating strong case awareness has become one of the most important tasks at present.
The Selected Cases of the People's Courts, edited by the China Application Legal Research Institute of the Supreme People's Court, has been published for 50 issues since its inception in 1992, featuring nearly 3,000 cases. Over the past 13 years, the Selected Cases of the People's Courts has relied on courts at all levels across the country and the vast number of judges, researchers, and other staff. Through case explanation, legal reasoning, and clarifying legal doubts, it has timely reflected the various legal issues encountered in the adjudication work of the courts, demonstrated judges' methods for solving legal problems, and showcased judicial wisdom, providing important references for adjudication work. Moreover, it has contributed to the development of many important legal theoretical issues.
Over the past 13 years, the selection work of the Selected Cases of the People's Courts has gradually formed a rigorous organizational system, an orderly submission mechanism, prudent selection criteria, and a unique case analysis method, ensuring the quality of the selected cases and earning the favor and respect of judges and other legal professionals at all levels of courts across the country. It has established the brand status of the Selected Cases of the People's Courts among countless case compilation publications.
In response to the requirements of the current situation, the Supreme People's Court has decided to reform the selection work of the Selected Cases of the People's Courts starting from 2005. It has issued the Supreme People's Court's Notice on Strengthening Applied Legal Research (No. 64 of 2005) and the Supreme People's Court Office's Notice on Strengthening the Editing Work of (Selected Cases of the People's Courts) (No. 275 of 2005), proposing higher requirements for case selection and placing greater expectations on the Selected Cases of the People's Courts. To this end, we must redouble our efforts to make the Selected Cases of the People's Courts even better and enable it to play a greater role in building socialism.