Research
Research Reports
| Title | Research on Judicial Reform of China | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2020.01.20 | ||
| Files |
 Research on Judicial Reform of China.pdf
Research on Judicial Reform of China(SB).pdf
|
||
|
Research on Judicial Reform of China
China and South Korea have been actively engaged in exchanges in various fields, maintaining a close relationship historically and geographically. Especially, the economic growth that China has achieved after the reform and opening-up policy has led to a rapid expansion in the economic exchange between the two countries which is now the core of bilateral exchanges. The expansion of exchange has consequentially increased the possibility of disputes between the people of China and those of Korea. Judicial procedures to resolve such disputes are an essential prerequisite for the stable and continuous development of economic and social exchanges between the two countries. In this respect, a mutual understanding of both countries’ judicial systems should be preceded. Since China adopted the “Management of State Affairs Under the Rule of Law (依法治國)” as a new governing policy in 1997, the Supreme People’s Court of China, through continuous judicial reform, has sought to establish basic directions for the socialist judicial system, ensuring harmony between the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the independence of trials, and to overcome the backwardness of the judicial system, solving problems related to the judge’s lack of expertise which has long hindered the judicial reform. Through these continuous efforts, the Chinese Court has made great advances in the areas of the litigation process and the litigation system by remarkably strengthening the expertise of the judge. Furthermore, the court has considerably enhanced the transparency, efficiency, and unity of trials, thereby building a relatively high degree of trust from the people. Based on these improvements, China is seeking to play a leading role in the future generation of judicial system through establishing a judicial system better suited to the information age as well as a globalized judicial system in a manner commensurate with its high economic status worldwide and raising the international awareness and influence of its own judicial system. Nonetheless, there are still many people in Korea who regard China as a judicially undeveloped country and neglect its advancements, without being fully aware of the reality of China’s judicial system which is changing dramatically. The judicial system of China is, of course, inherently different from that of Korea in that China keeps to people’s democratic despotism which denies judicial independence and the separation of powers. And also basic values pursued by the judicial system of China and Korea are distinguishable in a way that China still prioritizes social stability over the liberty of individuals. Thus, Korea should be careful about simply introducing the Chinese judicial system as it is into the Korean system. However, the Chinese Court has forged a distinctive judicial system through continuous judicial reform and has tried to expand its global influence in the judicial area with immense economic power. Under these circumstances, there would be undesirable consequences nationally and socially if Korea, which has a close relationship with China, chooses to neglect or disparage China’s judicial system. This research paper introduces a wide range of reform measures and methods implemented by the Chinese Court in order to promote an accurate understanding of the problems and current changes in the Chinese judicial system. The Chinese Court’s various reform measures that are being competitively researched and experimented by more than 120,000 Chinese judges can be used as reference materials for the Korean court in setting the directions for reforms to cope with social changes and to meet the expectations of the people. For the past several decades, the Chinese Court has made considerable efforts to improve the procedures and methods in reforming the judicial system, and China’s methods for judicial reform can also provide meaningful implications for the improvement of Korean court reform. Hopefully, this research paper would contribute to more active research introducing concrete and detailed contents of various reform measures implemented by the Chinese Court. 
|
|||
Previous  |
A Study on the Federal Assembly System of Switzerland: Focusing on the Legislative Process |
Next  |
United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence on the Protection of Minority Rights |
