Maintaining social justice is the fundamental goal of legal systems. In Chinese, the compositions of characters have symbolic meanings, and the word “law” has the meaning of “as even as water” and “getting rid of unevenness.” It is true that people have different understandings as to the meaning of justice under different social conditions and at different times in history. However, regardless of time and place, justice has been the goal that is pursued in judicial activities.
As a cornerstone of the legal system, the Criminal Procedure Law of China addresses a series of issues, such as the allocation of public power and the protection of private rights, and so on. The Amendment (drafted in August 2011) to the Criminal Procedure Law meets the demand of the whole society. Generally, the Amendment makes more progress in the advocacy system, evidence system, compulsory measures, investigational procedure, trial proceedings and enforcement rules. Specifically, it sets forth special procedures, which make the proceedings (in the whole) more reasonable. The Amendment involves five aspects: (a) prohibiting the extorted confession by torture and protecting the legal rights of criminal suspects; (b) excluding illegal evidence; (c) strengthening the supervision of investigation, and standardizing judicial actions; (d) improving the defense system and enhancing the role of lawyer; and (e) overcoming difficulties in the witness presence and promoting the quality of trial.
This article reviews the initiation, stagnation, recovery and reformation of the Civil Procedure Law of China, and places an emphasis on the evolution of the Civil Procedure Law under the background of judicial reformation. This article observes the amendment of the Civil Procedure Law, the adjustment of the rules of civil procedure, the establishment of the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Law, the trend of the Civil Procedure Law that is based on the research of major litigation systems and the perfection of legislation.
The amendment of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China should especially emphasize the principle of protecting citizens’ legitimate rights and interests. It should establish this principle of completing the system of the administrative procedure. Regulations that do not meet the requirement of this purpose should be revised, such as extending the scope of jurisdiction, removing the restriction of qualifications of plaintiffs, increasing certain types of litigation, encouraging flexible methods of adjudication, raising the level of jurisdiction, simplifying the procedure of litigation, and adopting more stringent enforcement measures.
This article deals with the question of the universal application of law from the perspective of necessary division of labor between national and international criminal jurisdictions. Applying international criminal justice fairly enhances its legitimacy, and international criminal law’s procedural aspects also must be fair. The universal application of international criminal law in multiple forums seems to be ensured by means of the proper division of labor between national and international criminal jurisdictions. Recent arguments show that this division of labor between national and international criminal jurisdictions may be properly handled in accordance with seniority criterion, which is the “big fish” versus “small fry” distinction. Lately, the international community has recognized seniority criterion as prosecutorial policy and a jurisdictional threshold, although in a different context, which is at a domestic level when that community tackles with the Somali pirates. The article argues that prosecuting both “big fish” and “small fry” is important for the universal application of international criminal law. In order to achieve this goal and to combat impunity, the feasible division of labor would be pursued with reference to the “big fish” versus “small fry” distinction.
While piracy is a serious problem in China, it is also a global concern. Within the domestic and the TRIPS context, this article discusses various forms of copyright violations in China, their impact on the enforcement of the Chinese Copyright Law, and their causes. In particular, this article discusses the unique aspects in China which make the enforcement of Copyright Law extremely difficult; it also analyzes how the Criminal Law should be used in the combat against piracy, and how China interprets the TRIPS Agreement as it is applicable to China. In addition, this article explores several means that are likely to become the future solutions of the problem of copyright violations in China.
The general principle of the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes is embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and it is comprehensively in conformity with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. It is also applicable to the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). In exercising their rights and performing their duties under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. It can only be said that “military activities” do not include “law enforcement activities.” Marine scientific research conducted for military purposes is, if contrary to the principles in article 301 of the Convention, forbidden in any part of the oceans.
Since China’s reform and opening up in 1978, the housing system in China had undergone two major reforms; currently, the third major reform (also called the second housing revolution) has started. This article analyzes the historical course of the reforms, investigates the gains and losses of the reforms, seeks the directions for deepening the reform of housing system, and in turn, establishes the patterns of housing construction and consumption in accordance with Chinese actual conditions. The report of the 17th National People’s Congress pointed out that “housing guarantee” is a heavy task “to ensure and improve people’s living standard, to promote social equity and justice, and to build a harmonious society.” The Real Right Law of China plays a positive role to protect housing rights, but it only gives limited protection of housing right. Meanwhile, the Real Right Law itself introduces new problems to the housing security. In order to protect housing rights and achieve the objective of “housing guarantee,” China needs to further improve the housing system and advance the housing legislation. The main approaches in this article include: (a) carrying out the “three-three housing policies,” there are basically three types of housing systems, three means of land provision, and three teams involved; (b) employing the bidding method of “four decisions and two biddings” for land supply, it means that the government should take the responsibility to decide land prices, construction standards, tax rates and profit rate; and the bidder is determined by scoring each of the bidders as for his house price bidding and building program bidding; (c) establishing the system of habitation right in China’s Housing Law and maximizing its function of social security; and (d) further improving relevant regulations in the proposed housing act or housing security law and paying attention to the establishment and implementation of supporting measures.
The EBRD is a “political bank.” “Multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economies” are the conditions (termed as “conditionality”) to get financial resources. The EBRD conditionality is coercive and intrusive. In sense of its nature, it is political rather than economic. Since it is purposed to foster the transition of open market, it is legitimate. In essence, it is believed to be a form of good international co-operation rather than that of willful or arbitrary intervention.