What kind of judicial power does China need?

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, China has undergone significant political, economic, social, and cultural change. One of the side effects has been an increase in the importance of law and judicial adjudication. The courts, however, proved ill prepared for a more central role, sparking both official and public discussion of judicial reform. Today, some of the groundwork of reform has been laid, but further reforms are necessary. This article assesses the achievements and shortcomings of the reform process, and maps the difficulties that future judicial reforms face. The author contends that a more coherent, systematic, and goal-oriented reform process must be developed in order to enable the judicial system to meet the country’s changing social and economic needs. In recent years, judicial reform has been an important topic in China. After countless speeches by state and Party leaders, lengthy articles by academics, endless studies and research, and innumerable judicial reform measures, it seems that all that can be written has been written, all that can be said has been said, and all that can be done has been done. Yet, despite such tremendous efforts, expectations have not been met and the level of public satisfaction with the reforms is disappointingly low. As a result, some people believe that the fountain of judicial reform is exhausted and that reformers and scholars should direct their efforts into other, potentially more fruitful, areas of ruleof-law reform. This, of course, is not advisable. To achieve the constitutional goal of building a socialist rule-of-law country, a modernized judicial system is indispensable. Reforming the judiciary is not merely a theme in the study of jurisprudence, but is intimately tied to the concept of the rule of law itself. In addition, as China undergoes significant development and change, the judicial system—which is charged with maintaining social justice—must adapt to meet evolving societal needs. Therefore, although the road of reform may be tortuous, there is no choice but to forge ahead, equipped with the understanding that judicial reform is a long-term task and not a single action that can be clearly described and defined.