Among the courts at all levels, the grassroots courts are most closely related to social governance, and the vast majority of contradictions and disputes that enter the judicial process will first enter the grassroots courts.
How do the basic courts deal with disputes and contradictions?
What is the position of grassroots courts in county governance?
How do grassroots courts serve the overall situation of local governance?
What are the characteristics of the organizational and operational forms of the basic courts?
How do grassroots courts play a role in promoting economic development?
How do grassroots courts play a role in maintaining social stability?
What are the non-operational tasks of the grassroots courts in county governance?
Is the prominent problem in the grassroots courts administratively and locally?
What are the common cognitive biases in the actual operation of grassroots courts?
What kind of distinctive and effective institutional mechanisms have been formed on the mainland to prevent leading cadres from interfering in the judiciary?
Why is there a significant difference between the theoretical research and the practical department's proposition in the relationship between the court and the local governance system?
Based on field research, from the perspective of county governance and overall national governance, Liu Lei, associate professor of the Law School of Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, has made a thorough analysis and interpretation of the basic positioning, governance function and operation mechanism of grassroots courts in the county governance system in the form of empirical research, and explored the actual operation of the judicial department in the county society.
County governance is an important foundation of national governance, and grassroots courts are a regular force in county governance. Compared with the discussion that is usually based on the "internal perspective" of traditional judicial theory or departmental jurisprudence, this book is a research that is more inclined to the "external perspective" or "lawyer-politician perspective", and tries to examine the actual state and internal mechanism of the operation of grassroots courts based on national conditions from the perspective of effectively achieving the goal of national governance.
From this book, readers can see many aspects of court operation that are different from those depicted by traditional judicial theories, and then deeply understand the deep institutional logic of the relationship between county justice and governance in the Chinese Chinese context.
This book does not directly respond to the knowledge needs of the legal profession in handling individual cases, but in fact, it can provide enlightenment for the proper application of law and dispute resolution in the sense of "background knowledge". If such "background knowledge" is mastered, in the handling of specific cases, whether it is judicial personnel or lawyers, they are more likely to form ideas and plans that are conducive to the effective resolution of conflicts and disputes based on the overall understanding and grasp of national and social governance. For non-legal workers, reading this book can provide a thorough understanding of the operation and practical logic of the relationship between the mainland's grassroots courts and local party committees and governments.
Read the book:
Readers can have a panoramic understanding of the operation of the grassroots courts in the mainland, not only from the overall perspective of the county-level governance in the mainland, but also from the judicial perspective of the county-level society, and have an in-depth understanding of the operation logic of the local party committees and governments.
About the Author
Liu Lei is an associate professor at the School of Law, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics. He has published more than 40 articles in journals such as Political Science Research, Chinese and Foreign Law, Jurist, Global Law Review, China Law Review, etc., and has been reprinted and excerpted more than 10 times by Xinhua Digest and Academic Digest of Liberal Arts in Colleges and Universities.
directory
Introduction
1. Why county governance?
2. Why the Grassroots Court?
3. Holistic approach and empirical approach
Chapter I: Basic Level Courts in the County Governance Structure
A basic court in a block structure
2. Grassroots courts in the interaction of blocks
3. The judicial position in the party and government system
Summary
Chapter II: County Governance and the Organizational Form of Basic Level Courts
1. The evolution of the organizational form of the basic courts
2. Mechanisms for the external acceptance of basic level courts
3. Internal regulation and control mechanisms of basic level courts
4. Reflections on the discourse of "de-administration".
Summary
Chapter III: Basic Level Courts in Promoting Economic Development
1. The response of the basic level courts to the economic development of the county
2. The autonomous response of the basic courts and its mechanism
3. The limits of the role of basic courts in economic development
Summary
Chapter IV: Basic Level Courts in the Preservation of Social Stability
1. The relationship between the basic level courts and the local party and government
2. Adaptive adjustment of the organizational form of basic level courts
3. Internal management and trial operation of stability maintenance pressure
Summary
Chapter V: Court non-operational work in county-level governance
1. The main types of non-operational work in basic level courts
2. The functional limits of the non-operational work of basic level courts
3. The embedding mechanism of non-business work of basic level courts
Summary
Chapter 6 Justice and Governance from a Holistic Constitutional Perspective
1. The theoretical implications of the holistic political perspective
2. Integration and tension between justice and governance
3. Path selection for the reform of basic level courts
Summary
Conclusion: A Judicial Concept Oriented to the Governance of a Great Power
Wonderful book excerpts
How is the candidate for the president of the basic level court determined?
The basic relationship between the grassroots courts and the local party committees is that the party committees lead the courts, and the courts participate in local governance under the leadership of the party committees. The leading role of party committees over the courts is mainly reflected in three aspects.
First of all, it is embodied in the realization of leadership over the courts through the organizational and personnel principle of "the party managing cadres". The court system implements dual management of cadres, that is, the local party committee and the court party group jointly manage, in which the members of the leading group are mainly managed by the party group of the court at a higher level, with the local party committee assisting in management. In terms of the relationship between the courts and the local governance system, the most important thing is the influence of the party committee on the appointment of the president of the court. The president of a basic level court is generally at the level of deputy director, which is equivalent to a deputy leading cadre of the government at the same level. In accordance with the principle of cadre management at the lower level, the selection and appointment of the president of the basic level court is decided by the person in charge of the municipal party committee, and the organization department of the municipal party committee is specifically responsible, the municipal intermediate court assists in management, and the county-level people's congress elects. With the promulgation and revision of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Judges, higher courts have a more prominent voice in the appointment of presidents of lower courts.
Although the official decision-maker is the municipal party committee, the municipal intermediate court is more familiar with the situation of the proposed president of the basic level court than the municipal party committee, so the municipal party committee will also respect the opinions of the municipal intermediate court. The higher-level party committee has the power to decide on the selection and appointment of the president of the basic level court, the opinions of the municipal intermediate court play a leading role in the appointment of the president of the basic level court, and the local party committee at the same level of the basic level court has the right to make recommendations on the selection and appointment of the president of the court. Among the factors considered by the municipal party committee in the selection of the president of the basic level court, the opinions and suggestions of the county party committee will have an important impact.
Generally speaking, the president of the court and the secretary of the party group are the same person. In some cases, a person to be appointed as president of a court will be appointed by the county party committee as the secretary of the party group of the basic level court, and will first go to the court to preside over the work for a period of time in the name of the secretary of the party group. In order to avoid a possible deadlock, the municipal party committee attaches importance to the opinions and suggestions of the county party committee on the selection of the president of the local court, and the municipal intermediate court will also communicate with the county party committee on the selection of the president of the basic level court. In practice, candidates for the president of basic level courts are generally candidates acceptable to the municipal party committee, the municipal intermediate court, and the county party committee. For example, at the handover meeting of the main leaders of the basic level courts, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court and the Organization Department of the county party committee both sent people to attend the meeting. This is evident from this.
The leadership role of the party committee over the court will also be realized through the party group of the court. The party group is the party's "ruling intermediary" and is mainly the executive organ of the party committee at the same level, and at the same time plays a leading role in decision-making, guidance, and personnel in its own unit. Under the circumstance that the right to speak on the appointment and dismissal of court presidents is weakened, the influence of the county party committee on the grassroots courts mainly depends on the party's organizational system, the most important of which is the party group set up in the grassroots courts. The actual functions of the party groups of the grassroots courts are very extensive, covering all aspects of the important work of the courts.
……
Self-Sequence (excerpt)
Since I started teaching at a university, I have often asked myself: In what sense can the research being done be considered legal research? This question does not seem to need to be asked, because from the perspective of the research topic or field, the investigation and analysis of the operation of the court must belong to the study of jurisprudence. However, the question can be further asked: in what sense is the knowledge expounded in this kind of research considered legal knowledge, and thus can become the knowledge that law students need to know?
The reason why such doubts arise is that the existing mainstream knowledge system of law follows the principle of judicial centrism, mainly teaching knowledge in the sense of judicial application, and some people even believe that only the knowledge of judicial application can be called legal knowledge. After all, as an ancient discipline, the history of law can be traced back to the ancient Roman period, and it has been inseparable from the legal profession since its inception, with distinct professional attributes, which are concentrated in the interpretation and application of the law, especially the application of the law in the judicial process by legal professionals.
Based on this intellectual perspective, it is undoubtedly difficult for the issues examined and discussed in this book to contribute knowledge in the sense of law. However, from the perspective of the overall pattern of the construction of the rule of law in the mainland, legal knowledge should not be limited to the level of judicial application, but should cover more dimensions. Compared with many disciplines, law has its own uniqueness and is closely related to the institutional construction and practice of the state, so the definition of legal knowledge also needs to be grasped from the perspective of the state. The legal profession plays a very important role in the governance of the state and society in the mainland, but the complexity of the governance of a large country determines to a large extent that many issues cannot simply be viewed from the perspective of the legal profession, but should be considered in more dimensions.
If we start from the attributes of law or the rule of law, the types of legal knowledge can be divided into three dimensions, namely, legal knowledge in the direction of judicial application, legal knowledge in the direction of social governance, and legal knowledge in the direction of national construction. These three dimensions can more completely show the composition of the knowledge system of law.
There is no doubt that the legal knowledge of judicial application should be the mainstream of legal education and legal research, but the problem worth paying attention to is that law students generally lack legal knowledge in the direction of national construction and social governance, and often tend to simply start from the legal provisions, and even form legalism or mechanical judicial thinking. This state of affairs has greatly affected or restricted the richness and completeness of the legal knowledge acquired by law students. Once entering the real judicial field, it is not difficult to find that there are two aspects that often bring confusion to legal professionals: First, why do the mainland often emphasize active advocacy or requirements such as "justice for the people" and "serving the overall situation" in the application of justice? Second, there are many aspects of judicial operation in the mainland that are not completely consistent with the so-called "judicial model" as understood from textbooks or Western theories.
From the perspective of legal knowledge in the direction of judicial application, it is difficult to explain these two aspects well, but such problems undoubtedly have a deep impact on the inner meaning world of legal professionals. Further, the key lies in how to deeply understand the institutional logic of China's judicial operation, and then form an understanding and recognition of China's judicial model based on a deep grasp of the institutional logic.