Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional site Go to professional site.
WebJD

Stanford publishes latest analytics review of China Guiding Cases

Posted by
|

Stanford Law School this week published its latest issue of Guiding Case Analytics entitled “China’s Guiding Cases System: Review and Recommendations.”

PRCcourt

Guiding Cases System

As a civil law jurisdiction, China does not recognize the stare decisis doctrine, because doing so would violate the principle that only the legislature may make law. Case law may be cited in litigation, but still serves a relatively minor role in supplementing statutes and SPC Interpretations[1]After a statute is published or updated, the Supreme People’s Court of China will review subsequent case law and issue an official Interpretation clarifying identified ambiguities or inconsistencies in the language or principles of the statute. for the ~200,000 jurists tasked with administering China’s legal system.

In an attempt to unify legal standards, improve judicial efficiency, and limit judicial discretion, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) starting in 2010 has converted sixty four (64) judicial opinions into Guiding Cases (GCs) intended to be de facto binding decisions for courts at all levels. According to Article 9 of the Detailed Implementing Rules on the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance, “Where a case being adjudicated is, in terms of the basic facts and application of law, similar to a Guiding Case released by the Supreme People’s Court, the [deciding] people’s court at any level should refer to the Main Points of the Adjudication of that relevant Guiding Case to render its ruling or judgment.”

GCs are officially named “案例指导制度” (Ànlì zhǐdǎo zhìdù), which literally translates as “case guidance system,” and cover a wide variety of legal issues ranging from land-use rights to software copyright infringement.

Stanford analytics findings

Key findings from the analytics report indicate the SPC is succeeding in its goal of summarizing adjudication experiences. Specifically, the report found that GCs:

  • “are of different types (12 criminal cases, 11 administrative cases, ten IP and unfair competition cases, and 31 other—though mostly commercial—cases);”
  • “are based on original judgments from the SPC itself or lower-level courts located in 15 different provinces/provincial-level municipalities, covering nearly half of the 31 administrative divisions of the country; and”
  • “address issues arising from 31 different pieces of Chinese legislation and two international conventions that are applicable in China”.

That said, the report also indicates several shortcomings in the GCs to-date:

  • Many provinces in China have few or no GCs. Not surprisingly, the current geographical distribution of GCs is heavily skewed toward more developed areas.
  • Published versions of GCs do not always include original judgments or rulings for those GCs. Such original judgments and rulings would add value as supplementary materials for legal practitioners and judges to reference in determining whether the basic facts and application of law are similar between GCs and pending cases.
  • At present there is no official mechanism to revise GCs to enhance their value in guiding subsequent adjudication.



  • References   [ + ]

    1. After a statute is published or updated, the Supreme People’s Court of China will review subsequent case law and issue an official Interpretation clarifying identified ambiguities or inconsistencies in the language or principles of the statute.

    Add a comment

    You must be logged in to comment.

    About WebJD

    Lead by former Microsoft Piracy Czar David Kay, we created WebJD as a means of promoting free access to the law, while at the same time better connecting qualified legal professionals with clients in need. For more information about WebJD China, please see the site’s Privacy Policy, Community Guidelines and Terms of Service.

    Disclaimer

    Content on WebJD is provided for educational purposes only; and does not constitute specific legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship.
    Copyright © 2015-2019 Beijing Langou. Design by WebMD Limited. All rights reserved. ICP备19010211