“Democratization” of judicial interpretation and the Supreme Court's political function

Abstract

最高人民法院发布新的关于司法解释工作的规定，明文确立了“公民动议司法解释立项”和“公开征求意见”的机制，从而在“民主化”的话语描述下，为其履行通过解释发展法律的政治功能建构了“表面上的民主合法性”，也使其能够在进行中国式司法解释（尤其是抽象司法解释）过程中广泛吸纳信息或知识。然而， “民主化”动向也给人留下最高人民法院无限贴近民意的印象，由此制造了使其很难在必要时进行独立、明智判断的困境。最高人民法院进行司法解释，需要在顺应民意和距离民意之间寻找适当的平衡，为此，不应再采取任何进一步“民主化”的措施。在有限范围内保留抽象司法解释，努力改革具体司法解释的内容、形式和相关制度，扩大具体司法解释适用的情形，让两种解释模式共存和竞争，以待未来的发展和选择，应是当前可取的策略。 The new provisions on judicial interpretation work issued by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) explicitly establish two procedural institutions: “Citizen motion for project initiation of judicial interpretation” and “Seeking public comment.” Under the rubric of democratization, these create “prima facie democratic legitimacy” for it to carry out the political function of developing law through judicial interpretation, and also enable it to broadly absorb information or knowledge in the course of Chinese‐style judicial interpretation, especially abstract interpretation. However, the “democratization” trend gives also the impression that the SPC hews so close to public opinion that it will find itself in a quandary if it becomes necessary for it to make an independent and wise judgment. The SPC must find an appropriate balance between following behind and standing aloof from public opinion. Therefore, we should not take any further steps in “democratization.” An acceptable strategy for the present would be for the SPC to retain abstract interpretation in a limited sphere while working on reforming the content, form and system of concrete interpretation and extending its scope of application, letting the two models of judicial interpretation coexist and compete for future development and choices.