The Judicial Document as Informal State Law: Judicial Lawmaking in China’s Courts
Shucheng Wang
Abstract
Shucheng Wang
Abstract
Judicial documents, which interpret statutory laws and make new rules for adjudication, have become a robust basis for judicial decision making in China. This article examines why and how, with no explicit congressional delegation, the practice of producing judicial documents has become embedded in the adjudication of China’s courts; how judges can effectively refer to judicial documents during adjudication; and the extent to which judicial documents have enabled subnational courts, under the dual leadership of superior courts and the local Party committee, to efficiently and effectively respond to subnational diversity and differences in local politics. It proposes the theory that this judicial lawmaking practice exists in a “twilight zone” between legal and illegal and examines why it is suitable for maintaining the political resilience of China’s authoritarian regime.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Judicial documents, which interpret statutory laws and make new rules for adjudication, have become a robust basis for judicial decision making in China. This article examines why and how, with no explicit congressional delegation, the practice of producing judicial documents has become embedded in the adjudication of China’s courts; how judges can effectively refer to judicial documents during adjudication; and the extent to which judicial documents have enabled subnational courts, under the dual leadership of superior courts and the local Party committee, to efficiently and effectively respond to subnational diversity and differences in local politics. It proposes the theory that this judicial lawmaking practice exists in a “twilight zone” between legal and illegal and examines why it is suitable for maintaining the political resilience of China’s authoritarian regime.
Key concepts: Lawmaking, Adjudication, Law, Political science, Judicial activism, Judicial independence, Statutory law, Delegation