China’s “One Website, Two Databases” Approach to Judicial Transparency, Reform, & Consistency

Image: Gerd Altmann, Seek (Publicdomainpictures.net)

为了缓解人们对一个发布了大量中国裁判文书的网站的未来的担忧,最高人民法院最近采取了不同寻常的举措,不仅确认该网站继续运行,还宣布建立两个新的数据库。借助这两个数据库,中国法院将能够制定数据驱动的司法改革措施,并提高司法一致性。两个数据库弥补了上述网站的不足,但值得注意的是,该网站作为维护司法透明不可或缺的平台,在提升两个数据库价值方面发挥着独特的作用。Read more

China’s “One Website, Two Databases” Approach to Judicial Transparency, Reform, & Consistency

Image: Gerd Altmann, Seek (Publicdomainpictures.net)

To alleviate growing concerns about the future of a key website used by Chinese courts to publish millions of judgments, the Supreme People’s Court took an unusual step recently not only to confirm the continued operation of the website, but also to announce the establishment of two new databases. With the two databases, the Chinese judiciary will be able to formulate data-driven judicial reform measures and increase judicial consistency. While the databases help address deficiencies of the website, it is worth noting that the website—an indispensable platform to safeguard judicial transparency—plays a unique role in enhancing the value of these databases.Read more

Image: George Hodan, Food Labels (Publicdomainpictures.net)

最高人民法院建立了一个令人印象深刻的框架来促进指导性案例的使用,但该法院尚未就如何处理中国法院对指导性案例的不一致应用给予明确的指导。本文作者首先分析中国几个重要法院如何不一致地应用指导案例60号,然后讨论这种不一致可能导致的问题。作者最后提出了解决方案。Read more

Image: George Hodan, Food Labels (Publicdomainpictures.net)

The Supreme People’s Court has established an impressive framework to facilitate the use of Guiding Cases but has not given clear guidance on how to handle inconsistent applications of a Guiding Case by Chinese courts. In this article, the authors analyze the inconsistent applications of Guiding Case No. 60 by several important courts in China, discuss potential problems associated with such inconsistency, and propose solutions to these problems.Read more

Image: sabthai/Shutterstock.com

China’s release of a Typical Case showcasing how courts in Shanghai recognized and enforced a foreign arbitral award by a special reading of the factual situation involved may help instill more confidence in foreign parties amid China’s efforts to revive its economy. How was this breakthrough ruling made? What are the implications of the ruling?Read more

Background image: xtock/Shutterstock.com

中国一家省级法院最近指令再审某纠纷,原因是处理该纠纷的下级法院在说理中没有讨论当事人所引述的与该纠纷类似的指导性案例。该裁定有望对该省使用指导性案例方面的司法实践带来积极的变化。为什么?对于中国其他地区而言,这项裁定也会是改变游戏规则的新发展吗?Read more

Background image: xtock/Shutterstock.com

The highest court in a province in China recently ordered a retrial of a dispute because lower-level courts handling the dispute failed to discuss in their reasoning a relevant Guiding Case cited by a party as similar to the dispute. This ruling is expected to bring about positive changes to the judicial practice of using Guiding Cases in that province. Why? Will this ruling be a game changer for the rest of the country?Read more

Image: Denise Lett/Africa Studio/MattiaATH/Shutterstock.com

In early 2022 (a special year that marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of China–South Korea diplomatic relations), China released a Typical Case to highlight the country’s recognition and enforcement of a South Korean judgment. Why now? What messages does this send to courts inside and outside China?Read more

Image: Den Rise/Shutterstock.com

Apart from China’s Guiding Cases, legal practitioners, business executives, and other stakeholders must not forget about Typical Cases, another category of representative cases that the Supreme People’s Court of China can release to guide Chinese courts’ adjudication. What are Typical Cases? Why are they significant?Read more

Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net

中国最高人民法院发布指导案例92号、100号和160号,明确该国立法和司法解释尚未解决的植物新品种权保护的基本问题。然而,本文分析指出,这三个指导性案例的指导原则已经被纳入最高人民法院最新的植物新品种司法解释。考虑到这一点,这些指导性案例是否基本上已经失去了重要性?熊美英博士解释了为什么答案是否定的并讨论了相关的含义。Read more

Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net

The Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case Nos. 92, 100, and 160 to clarify fundamental issues related to the protection of rights to new plant varieties that were left unanswered by the country’s legislation and judicial interpretations.  Yet, have these three Guiding Cases essentially lost their significance, considering that their guiding principles, as analyzed in this article, have already been incorporated into the Supreme People’s Court’s latest judicial interpretation related to new plant varieties?  Dr. Mei Gechlik explains why the answer is negative and discusses related implications. Read more