The semiotic interpretation of legal subjects in China’s new criminal procedure law

Abstract

AbstractSemiotically, it is worth discussing some legal terminology that expresses the legal subjects in the criminal procedure law drawn up in 2012. In China’s new criminal procedure law, it can been seen that different legal concepts are adopted to refer to the same legal subject, while different legal subjects are referred to by the same legal concept. In Article 106 of the new criminal procedure law, “participants in the proceedings” means the parties, legal representatives, agents ad litem, defenders, witnesses, expert witnesses, and interpreters. However, all kinds of criminal lawsuit participants appearing in the new criminal procedure law are far beyond the scope of “participants in the proceedings” defined in Article 106. While Article 3, Article 4, and Article 290 of the new criminal procedure law are all about subjects in the criminal procedure law, nevertheless, why is Article 290 arranged as the last article? With the help of the Peircean semiotic methodology and Greimas’ semiotic theory fused with legal materiality, some semiotic interpretations of legal terms are very necessary. Background metalanguage, consensus metalanguage, and context-oriented metalanguage are the foundation for analyzing the problems mentioned previously. In addition, legal language autonomy and unipolarity, the relationship of legal text and real legal meaning, and the transition from law in the text to the law in action provides several strong perspectives to make them clear. Drawing upon semiotic methodology fused with legal materiality, this paper will explore legislative techniques and methodology, especially logical deduction by reasoning between lawmakers and judges, including legal interpretation, legal reasoning, and interest measure. It will be beneficial to establish the authority of China’s new criminal procedure law and have it smoothly implemented in China.