Earticle

Abstract

영어

In contempoarary China, the pursuit of procedural justice has been basically a commom understanding in the society of judicial systems and strongly been seeked for by the public. It is socially recognized that the rule of law should put down to earth without fear for trouble, so one of important indicators of the rule of law society is to what extent the procedures law systems will be improved and carried out. After the amendments in 2012, a more important and urgent task is to implement effectively the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China rather than to improve it. To propel its implementation, there are four types of anti-legislation doctrine, such as explanation, adjudication, policy and experiment in the post-legislation era. Especially, a precedent of experimental legislation in the judicial field was firstly set by one current popular experiment-driven mode about criminal speedy trail procedure. The second of such experimental legislation was the authorization to carry out the people’s assessor system experimental program. All the puplar modes described here including experiment-driven type still have their existing drawbacks of addiction to the tendency of legislation. so there will be more law rules and less rule of law, although constant efforts may gradually lead to success. In a word, some problems with Chinese characteristics, for example, implementation through conference and execution by sloganeering, may be still popular and common, so the gap between perfect legal text and concrete legal practice needs to be bridged by the procedure system reform to take trial as center.

중국어

在不当代中国,对程序正义的追求一直是司法界的基本共识，并且为公众所强烈期待。实行法治应该不怕麻烦也为世所共识,所以法治社会的重要指标之一是程序法律制度在多大程度上得到改善和执行。2012年刑事诉讼法修正案后,更重要和紧迫的任务是对《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》的有效落实而非全面改善。在后立法时代，有四种推动其实施的反立法主义的类型,这些分别是解释、裁定、政策和实验。特别是，一个当前流行的关于刑事速裁程序的实验驱动模式在司法领域首开实验立法的先例。第二个如此的实验立法是授权开展人民陪审员制度试点工作。这里描述的包括实验驱动类型的所有流行模式仍有其现存的缺点，即沉迷于立法化的趋势，所以这将会导致“有更多的法律规则，更少的法治”，尽管恋恋不忘终有回响。一句话,一些具有中国特色的问题,例如,会议式落实和口号式执行,仍然可能是风行于世，上行下效，所以完美的法律文本和具体法律实践之间的差距需要以以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革来弥补。

Contents

Abstract
 Ⅰ. Introduction
 Ⅱ. Explanation-driven model
 Ⅲ. Adjudication-driven model
 Ⅳ. Policy-driven model
 Ⅴ. Experiment-driven model
 Ⅵ. Conclusion
 References
 <中文摘要>

Authors

• Erqi Lu [ 륙이계 | Associate professor, PhD, School of Law, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China. ]

Reference