Research on the Basic Theories of China's Judicial System: A Series on Litigation and Arbitration

Author: Chen Guangzhong, Editor-in-Chief
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 a competitive process—the "Research on Basic Theoretical Issues of China's Judicial System." As the chief expert of the group, I felt a mix of joy and concern. The joy came from the recognition and trust of the expert evaluation team and relevant leaders, while the concern stemmed from the difficulty of tackling this project, which felt like a heavy burden. From the moment we started writing the proposal, I sensed two key terms that were hard to grasp: "China's Judicial System" and "Basic Theory," as they contained profound and complex theoretical issues. Of course, since we had secured the project, we had to proceed with unwavering determination. Over the past year and a half, we have followed the plan outlined in the approved proposal and mainly carried out the following work:
1. In March 2004, we held a project kick-off 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 research and empirical investigations. Abroad, we visited the UK because its 2003 criminal justice reform revised traditional British criminal justice concepts. The reforms to specific systems to some extent shook the foundational principles of the UK's judicial system, drawing worldwide attention. It was necessary for us to understand the specific content and motivations behind 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 deepen our understanding of the current state of China's judicial system. We believe that without a thorough understanding of the current state of China's 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 first conducted thematic research on some key issues. Most team members have written papers of significant substance, 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 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 expressed in the papers in this book only represent the personal opinions of the authors, and some of the views are not entirely consistent with each other. When we formally finalize the project's results, we will not only provide systematic but also ensure consistency in both format and perspective. Personally, I feel that despite the efforts and achievements of our research group, as a major project, we still fall short of the expected requirements. Only by working diligently and dedicating another two years can we possibly complete this project.