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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.