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

Author: Supreme People's Court of China
Publisher:
Publish 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 firm determination, it is difficult for them to switch roles to write academic papers. However, adjudicating cases, their primary duty, provides judges with another way 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 manifestations. In the legal empire, cases are the (link) between statutes and reality, the carrier of legal wisdom and the embodiment of the rule of law. With the advancement 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 type cases, precedents, judgments, and guiding cases, etc. These terms themselves reflect the changing trajectory of the role of cases. Moreover, the value of cases has attracted the attention of the academic community, with an increasing number of scholars studying law from the perspective of cases, and more and more research results being produced in this field. Therefore, it can be said that the past decade and a half has been a critical period for major achievements in China's rule-of-law construction and an important stage for the vigorous development of case studies. These significant changes are reflected in at least the following four aspects:
First, the institutional development of case guidance has made a fundamental leap. Although case guidance practice in China has existed for a long time, its institutionalization was truly realized 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 elevation of the development of the case cause in the past two decades, with great significance. The second leap was the second Five-Year Reform Plan of the People's Courts. 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, thereby further consolidating 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 business units publish some complex and difficult cases adjudicated by their courts through their own publications; The People's Courts Case Selection has established its position as a specialized publication for cases; The Compendium of Adjudication Cases is a successful example of combining academic and judicial practice to develop case resources; and the Judgment Great Series of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China collects all judgments of the Supreme People's Court as important materials for guidance, reference, learning, and research. In addition, almost all higher people's courts are compiling and printing typical cases in their regions, and many intermediate and primary people's courts are also compiling typical cases of significance for learning and reference. Many legal journals have also opened special columns for case analysis. These research and achievements have provided a necessary foundation for establishing the case guidance system.
The third major change is that the practice of lower courts using typical cases to guide adjudications 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. Different models of case guidance systems have been tried and established in various regions, giving typical cases certain guiding and reference functions, cultivating case awareness among judges and lawyers. Judges are beginning to pay attention to collecting relevant cases, lawyers are using similar cases in court as arguments for the cases they represent, and legal researchers are beginning to explore legal theories and methods in cases to promote the development of law.
The fourth major change is that case research has been greatly deepened compared to the past. Twenty years ago, cases were more focused on "popularizing law" and promotional effects, while today, cases place greater emphasis on 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 a good foundation and opportunity 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, close interpretation to the legislative intent, and proper legal method use, and to determine their guiding role through appropriate procedures, has become an urgent issue to address. Second, the selection procedures and methods for cases still need to be standardized. Although the current "blossoming of a hundred 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 of 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 is in a "primary stage." Case work in various regions 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 a strong case awareness has become one of the most important tasks at present.
Edited by the China Applied Legal Research Institute of the Supreme People's Court, The People's Courts Case Selection has been published for 50 issues since its inception in 1992, featuring nearly 3,000 cases. Over the past 13 years, The People's Courts Case Selection has relied on courts at all levels across the country and a large number of judges, researchers, and other staff to interpret the law through cases, explain legal principles through cases, clarify legal doubts through cases, and promptly reflect the various legal issues encountered in the adjudication work of the courts, demonstrating judges' methods for solving legal problems, showcasing judicial wisdom, and 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 People's Courts Case Selection has gradually formed a rigorous organizational system, an orderly submission mechanism, prudent selection criteria, and a unique analytical approach, 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 a brand status 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 People's Courts Case Selection starting from 2005, issuing 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 of The People's Courts Case Selection (No. 275 of 2005), proposing higher requirements for case selection and placing greater expectations on The People's Courts Case Selection. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to make The People's Courts Case Selection even better and enable it to play a greater role in building socialism.