Talk:Law of the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guanxi and corruption[edit]


Periodic campaigns against institutionalised corruption have proved ineffective in reducing economic and legal crime. Guanxi is a part of China's "living law" and will continue to exert influence on the operation of legal implementation.

First of all, it contributes to the mistaken idea that guanxi and corruption are connected. Second, it's far from clear that guanxi is will continue to be an important part of Chinese legal implementation.

Roadrunner 22:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The connection between guanxi and corruption is by now very well documented and established. One of the most recent studies is Schramm, M. and M. Taube (2002), "The Institutional Economics of Legal Institutions, Guanxi, and Corruption in the PR China" [1]. They argue persuasively that state that Chinese guanxi networks embed individuals in social structures that provide safeguards against opportunism, but they simultaneously facilitate corrupt transactions. Few would deny that at present corruption and guanxi in China poses huge problems for law enforcement, and with no end in sight. --Yu Ninjie 23:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legal formalism[edit]

Wrong on a number of counts....

With respect to justice, the government has promoted the ideal of legal formalism, the notion that the strict implementation of law is justified irrespective of the fairness of outcome. This ideal has been largely rejected by an increasingly cynical population. There is a perception that the implementation of law is dictated by party members, who are spared the implementation of criminal law by the substitution of party discipline.

First of all, it's not clear to me that the government has promoted legal formalism. It's also far from clear that the population is becoming increasingly cynical about the law. The second statement needs to be rewritten, since it over simplifies quite a bit.

Roadrunner 22:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Law in Hong Kong[edit]

In Hong Kong, the delegitimising effect of the same dichotomy on the formal legal system is limited by the well-established structures that ensure accountability of government under the common law.

Such as....

The only thing I can think of right off hand is the ICAC and that isn't a common law body.....

Roadrunner 22:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bodies which I was referring to are those common law structures and doctrines inherited from Britain. The continuation of this system is guaranteed both by international treaty (the Sino-British Joint Declaration) and by constitutional provisions (the Basic Law). Legal doctrines such as the rule of law and case precedent have a much longer tradition in common law than in Chinese law. I will try to clarify the passage. --Yu Ninjie 23:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Law or farce?[edit]

It's a well known fact that China courts are often pure fabrications, with corruption and facts hidden. As the main article on China law, while it describes the processes and policies very well, it wouldn't be POV to indicate how bad the court system is in China. Elfguy 05:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Need rewrite[edit]

But as China is still a regime of collective dictatorship of CCP, the practice of rule of law is infeasible. The PRC is strongly resistant to a western style of division of power among executive, legislative and judicial branches, and the law is still a tool of the CCP instead of cornerstone of a republic. With the reform and opening to outside policy, China may have make great improvements in its legislation skills and adopted many advanced legal principles or concepts, but in practice rule of law is still facing vast obstacles.

Two problems:

1) There is a huge amount of legal issues that don't involve human rights, politics, or the party. For example, in the PRC, you have your standard contract disputes, traffic tickets, zone disputes, petty crimes, major crimes, people suing each other over someones pet dog, etc. etc. etc.

2) You run into the difficult and controversial question of what rule of law means. For example, if you try to establish an opposition party, the government will try to get you under the section of the criminal code involving subversion of state authority. You will have a properly constituted trial with a defense attorney to try to prove that you didn't try to subvert state authority. Trouble is, that if you did try to start an opposition party, you really did, and according to the law, you should go to jail.

Is rule of law operating?

I've seen law professors spend tens of pages trying to argue this issue. It's not something that you want to summarize in one paragraph or worse yet take a position on.

Roadrunner 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

POV stuff & comments on the "CCP"[edit]

I was going through this article just making general improvements, tidying it up, and it seems like every section has a paragraph at the end asserting some baseless negative generalization about the Chinese legal system. I'm not a big fan of the system either, but it's not the most graceful style to have stuff like that added on at the end of each part. It's almost as if the article periodically goes on a conspiracy theory rant. In addition, the same paragraphs always make reference to a "CCP" which isn't a valid acronym that I know of. My guess is the author is referring to the CPC - the Communist Party of China. I've left those parts more or less as they were, but they definitely need to be looked over. Does anyone know what the "CCP" is, or is it the CPC? Can any useful information be salvaged from these blurbs? --LakeHMM 04:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"CCP" is the same as "CPC" -- Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of China. "CCP" is often used; I've never before seen "CPC", myself. -- 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

problem with this paragraph[edit]

Needs citation otherwise problematic due to NPOV.

Also, the laws in the PRC don't seem to me to be vaguer than most civil law systems.

Given laws and regulations greater detail would assist the PRC's economic development in the long term, as it increases certainty, encouraging market rational behaviour. However, in the short run, detailed law limits the flexibility to respond to rapid political and economic change. This indicates a fundamental difference in legal philosophy to that which exists in Western legal systems. The official rationale underlying the vagueness of enacted laws can be found in legal texts such as Theories on the Basis of Legal Science (法学基础理论) by Professor Chen Shouyi. Chen considers that law must have stability as the superstructure of society, but be able to change when economic relations change.

Roadrunner 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Review of administrative acts[edit]

That section needs to be reworded. PRC Courts do not have the power of judicial review in overturning administrative regulations, but under the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China they do have the power to nullify a specific administrative action.

Roadrunner 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)