时间：2022-09-17 01:06:47
When President Xi Jinping made a high-profile pledge to “allow the people to sense justice in every legal case”in early 2013， he raised hopes that his administration would take reform of China’s troubled legal system seriously.
During the recent Third Plenum in November， the Communist Party of China （CPC）， which directly administrates the national judiciary， unveiled an ambitious reform agenda which it claimed would“curb the bureaucratization” of the justice system， which has become infamous for miscarriages of justice and official interference in court proceedings.
NewsChina met with law professors Zhang Weiping of Tsinghua University， and Chen Weidong of Renmin University of China， both key members of the Political and Judiciary Commission under the Party’s Central Committee， China’s top legal authority， to ask if and how the new reform agenda will be put into practice.
NewsChina： Why has the Third Plenum highlighted legal reform， and appeared to endorse this as its priority issue in terms of implementation？
Zhang Weiping： One of the most serious problems in Chinese society is social instability caused by the failure of the legal system to deliver justice and resolve disputes.
In past decades， the Chinese government has tried to maintain social stability through economic development. However， while economic growth offers a bigger “cake，” a healthy legal system is needed to fairly distribute it. Unfortunately， due to widespread corruption， a lack of independence， poor efficiency and low levels of professionalism， China’s legal system has failed. As the judiciary is rapidly losing public credibility， the authorities have realized that swift and bold reform is needed.
NC： What are the biggest problems with China’s judiciary， and how will these be addressed？
Chen Weidong： One major highlight of the legal reform [agenda] is to curb the external influence of local authorities over the court system. One primary problem with China’s judiciary is that court administration is highly localized. According to the Constitution， judicial power rests solely with the central government. But in reality， as local courts are locally funded and staffed， they are subject to[localized] political influence. The result is that local courts often do not serve the people， but local governments， and often make rulings based not in law， but in political expediency.
This is what the new round of legal reforms unveiled during the Third Plenum aims to tackle. In the future， courts at the county level will be funded by provincial governments， with provincial courts funded by the central government， freeing both from the influence of local interests.
NC： What about interference exerted by special interests on Chinese judges？
ZW： The problem is the bureaucratization of the court system， which allows judges and officials of higher ranks to intervene in rulings made by lower-ranking judges. For example， under the current arrangement， a “trial committee” exists for each court， usually headed by its director， which has the power to determine the ruling a judge makes. The result is that a court director， an unchecked power within the court who usually is absent from actual proceedings， can have enormous influence over the verdict.
A higher court can also influence the rulings of a lower court by requiring it to make a report on a specific case and then effectively prescribing its ruling， which is particularly common in high-profile criminal cases. Under this system， the higher the rank of an official（not necessarily a judge）， the more say they have in a case， regardless of who is responsible for it， which is against the basic principle of rule of law.
CW： Another result of bureaucratization is that no one can be held accountable for a wrongful conviction. The responsible judge can claim that his or her ruling was approved， if not determined， by the trial committee or a higher court， while higher officials and judges of higher ranks can claim that they are not personally responsible for the case. The proposed solution is to establish an accountability mechanism for individual judges， who will be granted independence in making rulings in the cases over which they preside.
NC： The documents released after the Third Plenum also highlight the need to promote professionalism in the court system. Why is this important？
ZW： Many miscarriages of justice are the result of the lack of professionalism within the court system. As one of the consequences of bureaucratization， serving personnel are not required to hold any legal qualifications. For example， more than half of court directors at the provincial level do not hold a law degree， as most are transferred to the judiciary from executive agencies， Party committees and people’s congresses. In effect， legal professionals in China are not required to have legal credentials in ordered to serve in the courts， which are effectively considered part of the official bureaucracy. It is a common practice for a deputy Party chief at county level to serve as the director of a county court. In some localities， a large number of de-commissioned military officers are transferred to the courts. All of these factors have led to low levels of expertise among judges.
While proposed reforms to return the power of appointment back to the courts can help to ease this problem to some extent， more serious efforts are needed to increase the professionalism of judges. Instead of appointing bureaucrats， there should be a strict professional qualification requirement， along with a new incentives system.
Currently， serving as a presiding judge is seen as a relatively lowlevel， “front line” official position a stepping stone to a more rewarding position in the official bureaucracy. Once a judge has proved their ability and expertise， they are promoted into an administrative role， and cease to preside over cases.
Under such a mechanism， being a presiding judge is seen as undesirable work to be escaped， rather than a respectable career. By contrast， in the US， the nine Chief Justices of the Supreme Court are highly respected， and continue to preside over cases.
NC： What do you think should be the long-term goal in China’s legal reform agenda？
CW： A fundamental problem of China’s legal system is that it is highly politicized. The primary purpose of a legal system should be to resolve disputes and promote economic development and social stability. For a long period time， China’s judiciary system has adopted an approach that has strayed away from its true purpose. The ultimate goal should be the restoration of judicial legitimacy.