Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:775Hits:24764738Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
CHINESE COURT DECISIONS (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   165604


Mass publicity of Chinese court decisions: market-driven or authoritarian transparency? / Tang, Yingmao ; Liu, John Zhuang   Journal Article
Yingmao Tang and John Zhuang Liu Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract is article discusses the online disclosure rates of Chinese court decisions, a measure of judicial transparency, based on a study of over 40 million court decisions disclosed on the designated website of the Supreme People’s Court of China between 2008 and 2016. We tested the online disclosure rates in various provinces against three determinants of government transparency suggested by existing theories: authority, market development level, and public trust in the judiciary. e results suggest that authority plays a decisive role, and the level of market development a limited role, in improving judicial transparency. We reject in part the hypothesis that public trust improves judicial transparency, or vice versa.
        Export Export
2
ID:   172284


Why do Judges Cite the Party? References to Party Ideology in Chinese Court Decisions / Ahl, Björn   Journal Article
Ahl, Björn Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract The availability of court decisions in open access databases has opened a new avenue for textual approaches to investigating judicial practice in China. Against the backdrop of recent adjustments in the Party-state relationship, this study analyses the interaction of core ideological concepts and legal arguments through the lens of court decisions and demonstrates that the courts do refer directly to concepts of Party ideology, albeit only in a very small number of cases. In these decisions, ideology serves mainly as a justification of the judicial correction of legislation that produces unjust results. The courts refer to ideology to appease the losing parties in lawsuits, as well as to explain and interpret substantive law. In so doing, the courts respect the fundamental separation between Party policy and law in principle, and have attempted neither to replace law by ideology nor to "legalise" ideological concepts. It is noteworthy that the references to ideology that Chinese courts make are primarily a response to the courts' political embeddedness, their relatively weak position within the Party-state apparatus and the absence of the autonomy of law.
        Export Export