Für diesen Artikel ist leider kein Bild verfügbar.

Lawmaking and Sources of Law in China

Benjamin Rooij, Annemieke Dool, William Jing Guo (Autoren)

Buch | Softcover

2017
Brill (Verlag)
978-90-04-33995-8 (ISBN)

Titel wird leider nicht erscheinen

Artikel merken

The China Law and Society Review seeks to provide a state-of-the-art understanding about the development and functioning of law and legal institutions in China. There is a rich body of work on Chinese law and society, both in law and socio-legal studies, but certainly also in political science, sociology, criminology, management science, economics, psychology, and anthropology. The field has witnessed intense specialization, to such extent that for most China law scholars it is virtually impossible to stay abreast of existing knowledge about Chinese law and society outside of their own particular area of interest.

Benjamin van Rooij, Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, is the John S. and Marilyn Long Professor of US-China Business and Law at the School of Law. His research covers lawmaking, access to justice and compliance in comparative perspective. Annemieke van den Dool, MSc. is PhD candidate at the Netherlands China Law Centre, University of Amsterdam. Her dissertation is about the role of public health incidents in lawmaking in China. William Jing Guo, MJur (2010), University of Oxford, Ph.D. (2014), University of Amsterdam, is an attorney at law in the Netherlands. His recent publications include inter alia From Case to Law (Amsterdam University Press 2015).

List of Figures and Tables Introduction: China's Top-Down Sources of Law by Benjamin van Rooij and Mary Gallagher Part 1: Lawmaking in China: Understanding Substantive and Procedural Changes by Benjamin van Rooij and Annemieke van den Dool a. Abstract b. Keywords c. Introduction d. Questions about Law and Lawmaking in China e. Overall Rise of Lawmaking in China i. The Rapid Growth in National People's Congress Legislation ii. The Rise and Fall of State Council Regulations iii. The Recent Decline in Departmental Rules iv. The Stabilization of Local Rulemaking f. The Rise of Regulatory Laws and Regulatory Burdens i. Regulation under the Reforming Planned Economy ii. Socialist Market Economy Regulation iii. China's Regulatory Burden iv. A lack of Anti-regulation Discourse g. Enhanced Specificity i. Laws Leave too Much Discretion ii. Towards more Specific Laws iii. Legal Certainty versus Flexibility and Feasibility h. Stronger Enforcement Powers i. More fines ii. Mandatory Minimum Sanctions iii. Higher Maximum Fines iv. Introduction of Fines Relative to Damages v. Accumulative Fines for Continuing Violations vi. A Common Punitive Discourse i. Citizens Get Limited Rights as Co-Regulators i. Civic organizations and Public Interest Standing ii. Transparency and Participatory Rights iii. Restrictions and Tightening Control over Civil Society iv. The Authoritarian Logic of Civic Regulation j. Increased Legislative Transparency and the role of the NPC i. Increased Availability of Information about the Lawmaking Process ii. Greater Participation in Lawmaking k. Pluralization in lawmaking i. Comments and Opinions about Legislative Drafts ii. Experts, Media and Civil Society Provide Input iii. Industry Lobbying iv. Foreign Influences l. Central Control i. The Black Box: Real Power at the Centre m. Local Lawmaking: National-Level Restrictions and Local Opportunities i. Selective Copying ii. The Expansion of Local Lawmaking Rights n. Legislative Strategies i. Starting Bold and Hoping for the Best Later ii. Involve Opponents Early iii. Beefed-up Lawmaking o. Crisis and Timing i. Pre-2008 Food Scares ii. The Melamine Crisis iii. Other Examples of Crisis Shaping Lawmaking iv. The Political Logic of Lawmaking and Crisis in China in Comparative Perspective p. Conclusion q. References Part 2: Cases as a New Source of Law in China?: Key Features of and Reflections on China's Case Guidance System by William Jing Guo a. Abstract b. Keywords c. Problems in China That Aroused a Growing Interest in Case Law i. Similar Cases Are Not Treated Alike ii. Lack of Transparency in Adjudication iii. Judicial Corruption iv. Reflections on the Arguments: Lack of Attention to Feasibility and Adaptability d. The Supreme People's Court's Design of a Nationwide Case Guidance System i. Basic Design Model and Key Issues of Debate ii. Details of the Supreme People's Court's Design iii. The Legal Basis for the Case Guidance System iv. The Selection Phase v. Case Selection Power vi. Case Selection Criteria vii. Case Selection Procedure 1. The Recommendation Stage 2. The Preliminary Review Stage 3. The Final Decision Stage 4. The Publication Phase 5. The Application Phase a. The Authority of Guiding Cases b. Citing Guiding Cases in Judgments c. Sanctions for Not Following Applicable Guiding Cases d. The Loss of Authority of Guiding Cases e. Functioning of the Case Guidance System i. Selection and Publication of Guiding Cases ii. Impact of Guiding Cases f. Will the Case Guidance System Achieve Its Objectives and Solve Legislative Problems? i. Guiding Cases May Not Be a Particularly Effective Instrument for Reducing Inconsistency Caused by Judicial Discretion ii. The Number of Guiding Cases Is Likely to Be Limited iii. The Top-Down and Nontransparent Case Selection Model Has Limitations iv. The Supposedly Coercive Force of Guiding Cases Is Difficult to Enforce g. Some Initial Thoughts on Supplementary Solutions i. Alternative to the Binding/NonBinding Analytical Framework ii. Possible Contribution by Legal Scholars iii. Possible Contribution by Legal Education h. Conclusion i. References

Reihe/Serie	Brill Research Perspectives
Verlagsort	Leiden
Sprache	englisch
Maße	160 x 240 mm
Themenwelt	Geschichte ► Teilgebiete der Geschichte ► Militärgeschichte
	Recht / Steuern ► EU / Internationales Recht
	Recht / Steuern ► Privatrecht / Bürgerliches Recht ► Berufs-/Gebührenrecht
	Recht / Steuern ► Rechtsgeschichte
ISBN-10	90-04-33995-7 / 9004339957
ISBN-13	978-90-04-33995-8 / 9789004339958
Zustand	Neuware