动态与观点
Abstract
The launch of the China Judgments Online website in 2013 drew significant attention from both the legal community and the general public, marking a milestone in judicial transparency in China. In theory, any judgment or ruling resulting from a public trial could be accessed through the site. Subsequently, the People's Courts Case Library began gradually to supersede China Judgments Online.
Although China Judgments Online is merely a search tool, my personal observation is that it has effectively transformed China's judicial practice and the prevailing mindset within the legal profession.
I.Reliance on Case Studies is Steadily Increasing
In the past, when representing clients, lawyers primarily searched for statutory law—including statutes, administrative regulations, local regulations, departmental rules, local government rules, and even non-public directives. Today, however, lawyers devote a substantial amount of time to searching for similar cases. They feel confident about their litigation claims only after finding similar cases. With similar cases to support their arguments, judges also gain the confidence to make decisive rulings.
I once handled a dispute involving a financial leasing contract. The presiding judge, noting that the court had never before adjudicated such a case, asked me directly for examples of comparable prior cases I had handled in other courts. For a judge, the return on investment for the time spent studying the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretations regarding financial leasing contracts is lower than that of studying an actual case. Before long, I received a judgment that was similar to the earlier case.
This raises a question: do similar cases submitted to a judge constitute evidence? Both judges and lawyers agree that they do not. If they were classified as evidence, China would effectively be operating under a case law system. Consequently, there is a tacit understanding between judges and lawyers to avoid debating the precise nature of these materials. In their written rulings, judges do not directly cite these prior cases; instead, they use them for reference or adopt their reasoning, while formally citing only statutory provisions.
II.The Task of Legal Interpretation is Primarily Undertaken by Judges in Practice
China's judicial system is rooted in the statutory law tradition. Current regulations do not explicitly grant people's courts or individual judges the authority to interpret the law; they stipulate only that judges apply the law to render judgments. However, applying the law necessitates interpreting it—one cannot apply the law without interpreting it. Thus, when judges apply statutory law to adjudicate cases, they inevitably—if inadvertently—interpret the law in the process. Initially, such interpretations applied only to specific cases; however, once legal documents were made public, these interpretations effectively exerted significant influence and provided guidance for similar cases. Judicial interpretations performed in the course of applying the law are becoming increasingly authoritative. This is a natural social phenomenon, not the result of deliberate human design.
III.The Standards of Adjudication Across Local Courts in China are Rapidly Becoming Unified.
The China Mainland is a unified judicial jurisdiction organized into four levels, comprising thousands of courts. This directly leads to disputes among parties over territorial jurisdiction. By relying on the logic of prior case, the China Judgments Online platform has directly accelerated the standardization of judicial rulings across courts. Judges generally find it difficult to justify deviating from—or failing to consult—prior cases; without following prior case, there is often no established standard to guide their rulings. The impact of case law on society far exceeds that of statutory law. While statutes can be obscure and difficult to comprehend, prior case presents the law to the general public clearly through storytelling.
IV.Conclusion
The impact of China Judgments Online on the country's judicial system represents a natural social evolution. Adherence to prior case is essentially a form of mutual imitation—a self-protective instinct; although not yet a formal judicial principle, reliance on case studies is steadily increasing in China.
This article is provided for reference only and is not intended as formal legal advice.
律师介绍
Zunyi WANG
Beijing Hengdu (Shanghai) Law Firm
Zunyi WANG is an Attorney at Law at Beijing Hengdu (Shanghai) Law Firm and holds a Bachelor of Laws from Peking University. He holds the Legal Professional Qualification Certificate, Professional Qualifications for Banking Professionals (intermediate level), Qualifications for Securities Industry Practitioners, Qualifications for Futures Practitioners, and Qualification for Fund Practitioners. He has previously served at a primary people's court and as the head of legal and compliance affairs for a financial leasing company. He is a Committee Member of the Non-Bank Finance Committee of the Shanghai Bar Association (SHBA) and an Individual Member of the International Bar Association (IBA). Additionally, he serves as an Arbitrator of the Zibo Arbitration Commission, a Mediator of the People's Mediation Committee of the Shanghai Financial Leasing Association (SLA) and the Shanghai Pudong New Area Shangtong Commercial Mediation Center of the Shanghai Commercial Factoring Association (SCFA).
