Understanding Traditional Chinese Law in Practice: The Implementation of Criminal Law in the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD)

Abstract

UNDERSTANDING TRADITIONAL CHINESE LAW IN PRACTICE: The Implementation of Criminal Law in the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) Norman P. Ho * Abstract The Tang dynasty (618-907 AD) is regarded as one of China’s most powerful and cosmopolitan dynasties. Its numerous achievements in the areas of literature, culture, economic development, and empire-building have influenced subsequent dynasties. The area of legal development is also not an exception. The Tang Code, a penal code which was promulgat- ed in its finalized form in 653 AD and is the oldest imperial Chinese legal code to survive to the present-day in its entirety, is regarded as an apex in the development of traditional Chinese law. Indeed, the Tang Code served as a model penal code for later Chinese dynasties, and the philosophical spirit animating some its provisions continues to influence modern Chi- nese criminal law today. Given the importance of the Tang Code and the Tang dynasty more generally, it is not surprising that much has been written about the Tang Code and Tang law. Most scholarship, however, has tended to focus on the history of codification and, more specifically, the Tang Code itself. For example, most scholarship has studied its various provisions, the philosophical bases and justifications behind its various provisions, and so forth. Less research has been dedicated to actually understanding how the Tang Code was implemented and applied in society and to answer ques- tions such as whether the application of justice (as mandated by provisions of the Tang Code) was applied consistently. Drawing on and introducing various selected historical sources (many of which have never been trans- lated to English), this article attempts to address these questions and to discuss the implementation of law in traditional China as viewed through * Assistant Professor of Law, Peking University School of Transnational Law. I would like to thank my colleagues at the Peking University School of Transnational Law and the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law for their helpful com- ments. Many thanks especially to Professor Andrew Harding of the National Univer- sity of Singapore Faculty of Law for his invitation to present the research reflected in this article at the Center for Asian Legal Studies of the National University of Singa- pore. (Contact: nph225@nyu.edu) © 2015 Norman P. Ho. All rights reserved.