As described by Professor LIN,
This post includes the abstracts of the papers presented at that conference and short bios of the conference participants.The objectives of the conference include three facets generally. The first objective is to provide a platform for scholars from different areas, and make the dialogue much more diverse and fruitful. Accompanied with much more openness of Greater China, more and more dialogues are needed for understandings and agreements among one another. The theme on the rule of law with Chinese characteristics is such a one needed to be explored and discussed for the future of China.
The second is to focus on this theme from comparative perspectives, get consensus on the pros and cons of the features of the rule of law with the so-called Chinese characteristics in transition so as to keep these characteristics, follow the track of the rule of law and arrive at Chinese rule of law eventually.
The third is to bridge the communications between China (including Hong Kong, Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan), North America, Europe, Australia and other countries and regions, so as to make Hong Kong academia know much more about the recent intellectual developments in these relevant areas.
Prof Yu Xingzhong (School of Law, Cornell University, USA)
Rule of Law as a Civil Order
Abstract: This paper will begin with a critique of the distinction between the thick and thin version of the rule of law made by some scholars. It then will attempt to introduce a theory of the Rule of Law that treats the Rule of Law as a legal civil order. In general, a legal civil order is external, rights-centered, rule-oriented and upholds the supremacy of authoritative texts. It is constituted by 1) a system of authorities guided by the ideal of the “rule of law”, 2) a cluster of conceptual categories centered on rights and rules, 3) institutional arrangements which take judicial institutions as the most fundamental and 4) the consciousness of the legal civil order which rests on rights and law.Prof Carl Minzner (School of Law, Fordham University, USA)
The Rise of the Security State
Abstract: Over the past two decades, the Chinese domestic security apparatus has expanded dramatically. “Stability maintenance” (weiwen) operations have become a priority for local Chinese authorities. We argue that the birth of these trends dates to the early 1990s, when central Party authorities adopted new governance models that differed dramatically from those that of the 1980s. They 1) increased the bureaucratic rank of public security chiefs within the Party apparatus, 2) expanded the reach of the Party political-legal apparatus into a broader range of governance issues, and 3) altered cadre evaluation standards to increase the sensitivity of local authorities to social protest. Over the past twenty years, these practices have flowered into an extensive weiwen apparatus, where local governance is increasingly oriented around the need to respond to social protest, whether through concession or repression. Chinese authorities now appear to be rethinking these developments, but the direction of reform remains unclear.
Prof Li Haiping (School of Law, Jilin University, China)
On the Non-state Public Power as the Basic Category of the Science of Constitution in China: A Preliminary Study of Transitional Constitution Jurisprudence
Abstract: Non-state public power is a kind of public power, which is enjoyed and performed by the organizations which do not belong to the State Organs being defined by constitutional code of China. Non-state public power as basic category of the science of constitution, which is an inevitable choice for searching for the truth of current constitution in China, making up for the defects of “strategy” of mainstream constitutional Jurisprudence, sticking to professional spirit of constitutional research, and promoting the transition of Chinese constitutionalism effectively, means that the relationship among civil rights, non-state public power and state public power is becoming the basic problems of the scientific research of constitution. The research of non-state public power in includes two different aspects, the constitutional norm of non-state public power and the normative constitution of non-state public power. For the constitutional norm of non-state public power, it is necessary to reveal the truth of the constitutional norm of non-state public power from the standpoint of positivism, such as the real current constitution of China and the real meaning of Chinese constitution. For the normative constitution of non-state public power, it is also necessary from the standpoint of value to search after the ideal of the normative constitution of non-state public power and the specific approaches from constitutional facts to normative constitution. During the period of transition in China, a theory of transitional constitution jurisprudence should be constructed urgently.
Prof HE Xin (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
Maintaining Stability by Law: Protest Supported Housing Demolition Litigation and Social Change in China
Housing demolition is among the largest sources of social instability in China. It provides an excellent site for protest to fight against the authority of the state. Most scholarship is produced by lawyers and social movement scholars. Professor HE seeks to combine these strains of scholarship to draw insights. His thesis: social change through litigation is not effectuated through litigation decisions and process memorialized in a case decision but rather by the interaction between courts and government agencies. The courts then serve as a mediating force in the Chinese administrative state with a focus on stability maintenance as prime directive rather than the protection of individual rights through case disposition.
The second session was chaired by Professor Gu Mionkang, School of Law, CUHK, and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof Jianfu Chen (School of Law, La Trobe University, Australia)
That’s Capitalism, but are there any Chinese characteristics? : The case of the Developing securities law in China
Abstract: A government sanctioned securities market initially emerged in post-Mao China not as a capitalist vehicle for investment, and not even principally for the purpose of fund-raising. It was proposed as a capitalist means for a socialist solution to tackling a fundamental dilemma in urban economic reform – to maintain socialism while invigorating the highly unproductive and unprofitable state-owned enterprises, or more precisely, to allow capitalist practices within a socialist politico-economic context. However, the rapid development of this market has witnessed a major transformation in the politico-economic context. However, the rapid development of this market has witnessed a major transformation in the politico-economic and legal circles that most people have forgotten the initial perceived functions that a securities market might perform in a socialist country. Fundamentally, the introduction of futures trading, the encouragement for globalization, and the legal recognition of privately raised funds in China signified the completion of this transformation from a socialist experiment to a fully capitalist practice. But, is this market regulated by a capitalist-style rule of law? If not, what are the Chinese characteristics of its regulation? This paper examines the transformation of the Chinese securities market and its accompanying yet constantly changing regulation. It is argued that the securities regulatory framework in China is capitalist in nature, not Chinese or socialist, and if it is Chinese, it is the lack of comprehensive and transparent regulation and, hence, accountability.
Prof CAI Lidong (School of Law, Jilin University, China)
The Chinese Features of Progressively Transformed Civil Law
Abstract: Unlike the former Soviet Union or other Eastern European countries adopting the “shock therapy”, China has been developing her social reforms with a progressive strategy of “going cross the river by feeling stones”, by both maintaining social stability and untying social stresses. To match strategy and meet the reality challenges of solving all historical problems once for all, Chinese laws under the social transformation, including civil law are exploring and testing the specific limits of nation and society, practicing the Chinese featured transformed civil law model with socialist factors with the historical duties of balanced development and stability, just and efficiency. This model respects self-governance with the precondition of social stability, and demonstrates the coexisting relationship between the progressive social transformation and the fading almighty state. On the other hand, the transformed civil law model with Chinese features guards and demonstrates the inner pursues of socialism system and maintains effective control on the general orientations and rhythm of social reforms; on the other, it gradually expands spaces of self-governance and pushes on the social transformation with order and control. Taking socialism and social stability as basic premise, this civil law model actively carries forward the social transformation and development, which both unties social stress and benefits Chinese society with the vigor of self-governance, and avoids its excessive impacts on social order.
Prof YAO Jia (Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Construction of Consumer Law in Social Transition Period of China
Abstract: Nowadays, China has entered into an era of abundant expressions of rights. For the consumer law, it has a trend that different types of consumers claim varied rights. In contrast, the emergence and development of China’s consumer law are different from developed countries. It adopted the model regulatory legislation and had the responsibility of creating market participants and their rights, shaping the social orders at the very beginning. It reflects the idea of social solidarity and symbiosis. Because of this path dependence and inertia ways of thinking, people prefer creating new rights hastily and ignore the values and function of the statue itself when social reality changes. However, the claims of creating new legislatures for consumers would not be helpful for the realizations of their rights, and could probably jeopardize the stability and authority of the law. Therefore, the current consumer law should maintain its spirit to treat a consumer as a natural person according to civil law but not a varied subject according to varied legislation. It should take the fragmented rules into a harmonized system. Moreover, the most important thing is to emphasize the implementation of the law which would be beneficial to protect consumers and maintain fair judicial adjudication.
The Third session was chaired by Professor Zhang Guangxing (Chinese Journal of Law, Institute of Law Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof Liao Yi (School of Law, Wuhan University, China)
Judicial Reform Paradox and Reconstruction toward Equilibrium in Transformational China
Abstract: In transformational China, modern judicial system plays a significant part in rule of law strategy. What’s more, the equilibrium enforcement of judicial power plays a crucial role in such a large country, where the development of politics, economics and culture are extremely out of balance. Stressing on the judicial equilibrium in transformational China has as special significance. However, the actual situation of Chinas is, the kind of imbalance resulting from the process of social change causes the structure of justice cannot meet the whole functional needs of the social development. There are many factors blocking the running of judicial power in transformational China, just like the compartmentalization, localization, administrative-based, tool-oriented, bureaucratic and utilitarian of the judicial power. In the final analysis, these factors are all related to the operation of the non-equilibrium of judicial power. Judicial equilibrium, as a type of rule-of-law culture and political civilization, will become a reality only if, the proper enforcement of judicial power, the rational figure of judicial authority and the proportion of judicial capability are united perfectly, public judicial power and judicial human right are combined with each other deeply, independence and authority of judicature itself are protected systematically, during the judicial process which is come up to the essence of judicature—equilibrium.
Prof Ni Fei (School of Law, Nanjing Normal University, China)
Realizing Rule of Law in Advance: Local Path and Its Limits
Abstract: In recent years, Jiangsu, Guangdong, Zhejiang and other Chinese developed provinces have put forward the goal of realizing rule of law in advance, which leads to debates among Chinese scholars on the feasibility of regional realizing rule of law in advance under Chinese current unitary system, the relationship between the local government’s practices and the principle of legal system unity, and the necessary elements to realize rule of law in advance. These questions are very important because they relate to the legitimacy of local governments’ practices in realizing rule of law in advance and are actually concerned with fundamental path of China to become a rule of law country. Therefore, it needs to discuss the concrete practices of these provinces firstly. The predominate forces of realizing rule of law in advance is the government, local government directly and central government indirectly. To realize the goal, local governments have enacted many documents, in which they put forward definite timetable, stage targets and evaluations indexes. Comparatively speaking, legal scholars and common people are more passive in this process. Successful practices in local legislation and judicial reform all depend on the authority department’s even single official’s awareness of basic needs of the society. As a whole, it follows a “top down” model, but is also mixed up with “bottom up” model; it is a “Respond in System” model. The government responds to the needs and advices of legal scholars and common people through official channels, and the higher level government responds to the lower government’s practices by evaluating their effectiveness. This model is not perfect: the government could not always precisely and timely conscious of changes of society and people’s basic need for its channel limits; the higher level government could not ensure reasonable evaluations with digital indexes; there is no efficient responding system in central government level to review local government’s practices. However, this model cannot be overruled due to the “path dependence” of Chinese rule of law. The feasible way of keeping local practices in accordance which Chinese unitary system and the principle of legal system unity is to pen people’s participation channels, improve the evaluations system and review system in national level.
Prof TONG Zhiwei (East China University of Political Science and Law, China)
The Basic Theoretical Problems We Must Study in Deepening the Reform
Professor TONG was unable to join the panel; his paper is expected later, stay tuned.
Prof Xia Zhenglin (School of Law, South China University of Technology School of Law, China)
The Constitution of 1982 and the Development of the View of the Rule of Law During the period of Transformation
Abstract: The constitution of 1982 has played an important rule of legal guarantee for the realization of the central task of economic construction in these 30 years. But fundamentally speaking, its view of the rule of law is legislative supremacy and formalism, and short of an effective restriction of power system. AS one of symbols of human civilization, the most fundamental request of the rule of law is to make power under control. The fundamental task of the rule of law is to establish a mechanism to restrict the power. At present, we should set up the constitutional review mechanism, and improve the constitutional application system.
The fourth session was chaired by Professor Xu Zhangrun (School of Law, Tsinghua University, China), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof LI Yuwen (School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherland)
Innovation in Judicial Institutions: Rethinking the Establishment of Administrative Courts in China from a Rule of Law Perspective
Abstract: Since the Administrative Litigation Law took effect in China in 1990, administrative disputes bough before the courts by citizens or legal persons have been handled by the respective chamber for administrative cases in each court. Whilst recognizing the positive contribution of the judiciary in the protection of individual rights and the supervision of governmental agencies to perform their functions according to the law, once is compelled to concede that a number of stumbling blocks exist that prevent the system from operating as one reasonably expects. The discontented attitudes held for the courts’ handling of administrative cases inevitably results in the people questioning the level of the rule of law exhibited in China. This paper argues in favour of establishing and advancing the rule of law, China needs to open its door to bold ideas in order to reshape its administrative litigation system. The establishment of new administrative courts as special courts, separate from ordinary courts which deal with criminal, civil and commercial cases, may offer an alternative solution. The paper will first examine two of the most problematic characteristics of the current administrative litigation system in China: the former as the lack of access to justice and the latter, weak judicial independence. As such a reality prevails, legal scholars are urged to critically reflect upon and in turn drive forward alternative solutions. Secondly, the necessity for creating new administrative courts will be discussed from a stance which enters upon the rule of law. Thirdly, a comparative study and overview of proposals by Chinese scholars on institutional designs of the administrative courts will be presented to illustrate as well as emphasize the imperative role of academia in stimulating institutional innovation. Fourthly, the recent trend in establishing or re-establishing special administrative courts in other countries will be reviewed as means of reference for China. Lastly, a conclusion will be drawn.
Dr Surya Deva (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
Judicial Independence in China: The Chasm between ‘Chinese Characteristics’ and the ‘Global Standards’
Abstract: Judicial independence is generally regarded as critical to establishing the rule of law. It is also widely accepted that courts in mainland China are not independent and that judicial independence with ‘Chinese characteristics’ falls must short of global standards of judicial independence. This paper will explore this chasm between different standards of judicial independence. Can China satisfy the global aspirations on judicial independence – for example, reflected in the Mount Scopus International Standards of Judicial Independence – in the near future? Will it be fatal for the evolution of the rule of law in China if it continues to fail in meeting the global standards set by Western democracies? These issues will be examined in the light of Chinese constitutional provisions and practices. Comparative insights will be drawn from India where the judicial independence has led to the higher judiciary becoming almost unaccountable.
Prof Jiang Guo-Hua (School of Law, Wuhan University, China)
Evolution and Dimensions: the Judicial Values of China in Transition
Abstract: The contemporary judicial values of China have undergone four historical changes along with four society transformations, namely from “charging forward the ranks of class struggle” the political judicial values changed to “safeguarding the economic construction” economic judicial values, then evolved into “excluding the difficulty of social stability” social judicial values and tended towards “guiding for the rule of law civilization” equitable judicial values. But the former three kinds of justice values are the product of legal instrumentalism. They are the variants of the rule of man, so it is necessary for us to criticize these three kinds of judicial values in the history. Therefore, we want to shape the multiple equitable judicial values, which take “fair, probity, for the people” as the core.
The fifth session was chaired by Professor Mark Tushnet (School of Law, Harvard University, USA), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof XU Zhangrun (School of Law, Tsinghua University, China)
Secular Rationalism: Law and Its Image in Modern China Since 1860s
Abstract: By using concepts of secularization and rationalism, this article provides a historical analysis about the major feature in legal-political aspect of state-building of modern China during the period of Great Transformation since 1860s, in particular, since 1978 when China restarts its free-market journey by backing to 1911, a year of republican polity founding after Qing Dynasty collapsed. It argues that secular rationalism is key thread of this story, in which, destructing the traditional dual-Li-fa-system, breaking law off from Confucian morality, getting rid of revealed and dogmatic discourses, constituting legal system based on Western style rationalism, substituting civil political economy for revolutionary idealism, etc. As a result above all, there has been a tension between “divinity” and “secular” during the whole period until nowadays, which drives efforts to searching legitimacy of law from connotation of ‘moral-history” containing in Chinese culture, a kind of transcendent dimension nourishing letter law.
Prof Larry Catá Backer (School of Law, Pennsylvania State University, USA)
State and Party in the Scientific Development of a Legitimate Rule of Law Constitutional System in China: the Example of Laojiao and Shuanggui
Abstract: China is developing its own distinctive path towards socialist constitutionalism and rule of law. Socialists constitutionalism with Chinese characteristics reflects China’s history and its unique circumstances, but also conforms with the general principles of transnational constitutionalism. The Chinese constitutional order is grounded on a principal of separation of powers that distinguishes between an administrative power assigned to the government and a political authority assigned to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Administrative constitutional power is organized within the State Constitution; the authority of the CCP is acknowledged in the Constitution but framed by the ideological premise on which the political order is founded-under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory the important thought of ‘Three Represents’ and the concept of scientific development. This paper considers the development of constitutional rule of law theory with Chinese characteristics by considering its application in two related but distinct legal contexts—laojiao (the system of administrative detentions, re-education through labor) and shuanggui (the system of intra-CCP discipline of CCP cadres). The paper will first briefly review the emerging framework of the Chinese constitutional order, represented by the respective roles of the state apparatus and the CCP. The paper then will review the laojiao and shuanngui systems, the former applicable to all individuals and the later applicable only to CCP members. It will suggest why laojiao is constitutionally suspect but shuanggui is constitutionally sound under the current constitutional framework. Shuanggui deals with political, rather than administrative breaches that touch on the integrity of the role of the CCP as Party in Power. It is in this sense beyond the competence of the administrative authorities represented by the government apparatus and relates to the constitution of the CCP rather than the constitution of the state and its administrative authority over the people. As a consequence, the shuanggui system is not subject to the same constitutional difficulties as laojiao. The paper ends with a suggestion of the ways in which shuanngui might benefit from scientific development under China’s rule of law constitutional system in the way it is administered.PowerPoints: HERE or HERE.
Full Paper: HERE
Prof Timothy Webster (School of Law, Case Western Reserve University, USA)
China’s Compliance with the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body
Abstract: In the west, china is portrayed as an international law renegade. Whether staking territorial claims in the South and East China Seas, armoring African militants, defying sanctions to North Korea, or important ivory from protected species, China allegedly does not heed global governance regimes. Even in the area of trade, where its successes have earned global admiration, China supposedly disrupts the international system. This paper subjects this discourse to empirical scrutiny by analyzing China’s implementation of WTO rulings. Like most major trading nations, China has been found to violate WTO disciplines in many cases. This paper then asks what effect these findings had on China's rule of law along temporal and qualitative axes. First, did China withdraw the offending measures within a “reasonable period of time?” Second, what type of legislative or regulatory reform did China undertake to effectuate the ruling? I find that China shows high rates of compliance in both temporal and qualitative dimensions. China timely complied in seven of eight cases (87.5%). In the eighth case, China needed an additional twelve months to complete the various reforms to its domestic legal system. This compares favorably with developing countries, which average timely compliance in 80% of cases. But China also amassed a strong record in qualitative compliance. When the DSB said a particular law was inconsistent with WTO disciplines, China repealed the offending measure in nearly every case. Over the eight disputes, China has agreed to prune national laws, ministerial regulations, local laws, and other branches of its complex ecology. That compares favorably with other members of the WTO, such as the United States, which have simply refused to follow DSB rulings in many cases. In the final part of the paper, I unpack China’s DSB behavior with the help of international relations. Using realist, liberal institutional and constructivist theories, I show how China’s behavior challenges assumptions about liberal state on the one hand and illiberal authoritarian regimes on the other. Interestingly, one-party control over an entire state’s legal and regulatory environments can lead to high compliance levels with international institutions. I conclude that China’s strong level of compliance betokens a willingness to cooperate in global governance regimes, at least in the field of international trade. The WTO DSB does enhance compliance by providing willing members a meaningful opportunity to discuss the issues of conformity, and then sufficient time to implement adverse rulings.
The sixth session was chaired by Professor Mo Shijian (Faculty of Law, Macao University, Macao SAR), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof Hans-Martien ten Napel (School of Law, Leiden University, Netherlands)
Religious freedom, Eastern ethical monism and Western ‘civic totalism’
Abstract: In a recent article, entitled ‘A pluralist reconstruction of Confucian democracy,’ Kim Sungmoon attempts ‘to revamp Confucian democracy, which is originally presented as the communitarian corrective and cultural alternative to liberal democracy, into a robust democratic political theory and practice that is plausible in the societal contest of pluralism’. The proposed paper will use the same source of inspiration that Sungmoon uses to reconstruct Confucian democracy, i.e. William Galston’s notion of liberal pluralism, in order to critically appraise the current state of Western liberal democracy. To what extent does Western liberal democracy, more specifically, still manage to realize the principle of expressive liberty as defined by Galston? Sungmoon rightly points out that, paradoxically, often religious freedom is ‘in practice grounded in the radical unavailability of freedom of choice for a person who is radically situated in a particular religious and/or cultural community as a member’. Just as by the ethically monistic character of certain theorizations of Confucian democracy, expressive liberty is threatened by a Western ‘civic totalism’ that insists that ‘politics enjoys general authority over subordinate activities and institutions because it aims at the highest and most comprehensive good for human beings’ (Galston). According to Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way Between West and East (2013), China needs more transparency, among other things. In the West itself transparency is also widely regarded as the key to increasing trust of citizens in government. It may well have to come to terms with the fact, however, that its ideal of liberal democracy will remain fundamentally flawed, as long as the sovereignty of the people on which its political legitimacy is ultimately based (cf. A Confucian Constitutional Order. How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future, 2013) hinders instead of advances a true sort of value pluralism.
Prof LI Baoping (Ningxia Academy of Social Sciences, China)
The Ethnic and Religious Factors in the Process of Judicial and Administrative Law Enforcement in the Ethnic Regions-----A Case Study in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region
Abstract: In multi-ethnic countries, we can not only understand and master the nationalization and localization of legal system from the perspective of national level. As a matter of fact, the legal system in the internal multi-ethnic countries exists in the process of multiple nationalization and localization. The legal regulations and system design of nation-state provides the localization with a specification foundation. Besides, in ethnic regions, localization presents the phenomenon of the minority customary law and the utilization of ethnic and religious identity to affect judicial and administrative enforcement of law. Especially the latter, which directly leads to the informal tends to increase in judicial and administrative enforcement of law in ethnic regions, thus, it not only jeopardizes the national legal system’s unification, but also affects the social stability and ethnic unity in ethnic minorities, we should attach great importance to it.
Dr. Xing Lijuan (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong)
Competition and Compromise between the Rule of Law and Social Harmony under China’s Criminal Procedure Law of 2012
Abstract: As the touchstone of China’s judicial reform, latest revisions of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have been attached unprecedentedly intense attention worldwide. The CPL as amended in 2012 (hereinafter “CPL 2012”) functions not only as an “annotation” to the constitutional principle of protecting human rights but also as a “drogue” of the rule of law in China. A critical clue to diagnosing the implications of the CPL 2012 for China’s move toward the rule of law is the competition and compromise of the new amendment's two founding values – the rule of law and social harmony. Among the article’s main purposes are these: (i) clarifying both the shifts in values of the Chinese criminal justice system and the two values founding the CPL 2012; (ii) identifying multiple missions undertaken by the CPL 2012, which derive from those two values; (iii) highlighting the competition and compromise between the rule of law and social harmony as mirrored by the interplay between those multiple missions; and (iv) characterizing the approach adopted by the CPL 2012 in balancing between its emphasis on the rule of law and social harmony. The article starts by briefly reviewing the development of China’s criminal procedure system in the country’s establishment and the accompanying development of the system’s founding values as well. It then explores – from both historical and contemporary perspectives – pertinent legal philosophy represented by the terms “rule of law” and “social harmony” in China. The article surveys subsequently four missions assumed by the CPL 2012, which are ideologically rooted in either the rule of law or social harmony – i.e., (a) improving the protection of human rights, (b) overhauling obsolete mechanisms, (c) strengthening the suppression of crimes, and (d) reliving social tension. The potential conflicts between those multiple missions, which can be attributed to the ideological incompatibility between the rule of law and social harmony within the Chinese legal system, are further examined. The articles concludes with general observations on the significance of the (in)compatibility between the rule of law and social harmony under the CPL 2012 for the upcoming judicial reform within China.
Prof Xiao Shi Jie (School of Law, Guangzhou University, China)
The Ideas of the Criminal Law with Chinese Characteristics in Transition----Thinking about the 8th Amendment of Chinese Criminal Law
Abstract: In the course of social transformation, the ideas of the criminal law in China has developed multiple features. The 8th Amendment of the Criminal Law of China put into effect on January 1, 2013, on one hand majorly made modifications for the purpose of decreasing and restricting the use of death penalty, regulating the crime-penalty structure and adjusting the criminal penalty system, which has made the criminal law system and crime penalty regulation more reasonable in formality. Those modifications in some sense accorded with the worldwide trend of moderate criminal penalty and the progress of the rule-of-law. On the other hand, the Amendment responded effectively both to the domestic situation and the voices of the general public in a transforming society. It also expressed the expectations of the authority and the mainstream public opinion for the functions that the criminal law served and reflected the social fundamental collective moral feelings. However, the promulgation of the Amendment aroused criticism from the academic scholars. They thought the criminal law should be more rational rather than simply follow the populism. Practically speaking, a transitional society with highly complexity puts heavier burden on the laws. A so-called legal issue may not be a pure one, yet other aspects of the social life may be involved in it. And so does the legislation. The reform on legal system always takes place after the changes of the society and the collective living conditions. Therefore, to have an overall picture of the ideas of the Criminal Law, it is more effective to take a dimensional vision, not only from legal and logical aspect, but also from legal sociology, social psychology and legal economics aspects. Only in this way is it possible to have a constructive reading on the Amendment and a better understanding of the ideology that governs the Criminal Law of China in the course of social transformation.
The seventh session was chaired by Dr. Rajesh Sharma (School of Law CUHK SAR), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof MO Shijian (Faculty of Law, Macao University, Nacao SAR)
Justice by Media—The Role of Media in the Present Development of Rule of Law in Transitional China
Abstract: China has become one of the major economic powers in the present world. At the same time, the rule of law in China has also evolved at its own pace with the so-called Chinese characteristics. One of such characteristics is the active media involvement in the exposure and revelation of varied illegal, condemnable or arguable activities involving various governmental authorities or individuals, even though most of them are local ones. There appears to be a tendency or practice that he relevant law enforcement authorities have acted rather promptly, responsively or efficiently once some dark side of the stories has been exposed or revealed to the public. In some way, the exposure by mass media which are generally controlled by the State, or internet based media which can accessed by both the general public and the State owned agencies, has become an effective manes of law enforcement, which appears to be capable of offering solutions to many non-compliance activities which have been claimed to out of reach by many law enforcement authorities for various known or unknown excuses. The paper examines the present practices of media in the improvement of rule of law in China and reads the present scenario from the perspective of a legal academic whose legal thinking has been influenced by both the Chinese legal culture and Common Law culture.
Dr. LIN Feng (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kong Kong SAR)
In Quest for a Constitutional Review Mechanism with Chinese Characteristics
Abstract: There already exists a lot of literature both in English and Chinese exploring the most suitable constitutional review mechanism for mainland China. As far as English literature is concerned, in 1995, the late Professor Cai Dingjian mentioned four alternatives, i.e. a constitutional committee under either the NPC or its Standing Committee, a constitutional court, or the Supreme People’s Court. Professor Wang Lei and Professor Wang Zhenming are of the view that there is nothing in Chinese law against the application of Chinese Constitution by its ordinary courts. Hence they are in favor of using ordinary courts to apply the Constitution, i.e. judicialization of the Constitution. More recently, a few other alternatives have been put forward. Professor Larry Backer has argued for the establishment of a constitutional review chamber within the CPC. Professor Pan Wei has proposed a transitional consultative rule of law model. Professor Keith Hand has advocated the use of grand mediation as a transitional means to resolve constitutional dispute in China. All the models put forward by Chinese and Western scholars can be classified into two categories, one is idealist models based on foreign experience, the other is practical models taking into China’s political and constitutional reality. Only the second category has the possibility of containing Chinese characteristics and each of them does have some unique characteristics. Against this background, this paper seeks to discuss whether China may develop a constitutional review mechanism with its own characteristics on the condition that no radical political and legal reform would be carried out in the foreseeable future. Since the people’s congress system is one of the most fundamental elements of Chinese Constitution, any constitutional review model must be consistent with it. Though the constitutional review mechanism under the 1982 Constitution had not functioned, the Legislation Law enacted in 2000 has provided more details to that mechanism and a specific institution at national level has been established to conduct the review. Though no decisions have been publicly announced, Professor Tong Zhiwei has opined that the new institution has functioned informally, as evidenced by Sun Zhigang incident. Following the path dependency theory, the author is of the view that it is much more difficult to try to establish a new constitutional review mechanism, as suggested by some other scholars, which is completely different from the existing one. Now the only difficult thing left is which organ should conduct the review of constitutionality of national laws enacted by the NPCSC and the NPC. A mechanism or an institution should be designed or designated to review the constitutionality of national laws. While agreeing that each of the above-mentioned models has its merits, the author would like to propose another alternative based on the past British experience. It is because the people’s congress system in China originated from the British parliamentary system. In Britain, there is parliamentary sovereignty. In China the similar concept exists as the NPC is the highest organ of state power and it’s above all other constitutional organs. In the past, the Law Lords in the House of Lords performed the role of the highest judicial organ. Similarly, a specific organ within the NPC, e.g. the Law Committee, could be designated to perform limited constitutional review which the Law Lords did after the Human Rights Act came into effect. So the Law Committee of the NPC could be given the task to conduct constitutional review and make decisions on consistency/inconsistency between national laws and the Constitution. It will be up to the NPC/NPCSC to decide when to amend or repeal the relevant national law. In so doing, the supremacy of the NPC would not be infringed while constitutionality of the laws enacted by the NPCSC/NPC could be reviewed. The paper then moves on to discuss whether the above proposed mechanism is really something of Chinese characteristics. If China will learn from the UK and enable the Law Committee to give advisory opinion on constitutionality of national laws, it is obviously not something unique to China. What may be argued to be really unique to China is that the whole mechanism already established under the 1982 Constitution and the 2000 Legislation Law is built on the basis of people’s congress theory. As a result, people’s congresses at lower levels also have limited role in performing constitutional review instead of courts. Furthermore, the way the new institution under the Legislation Law has worked, i.e. in negotiative and consultative nature, may also be something unique as advocated by Professor Keith Hand. The next question is whether they are good characteristics worthy of keeping or are characteristics of transitional nature and would eventually be replaced by a different constitutional review mechanism such as a constitutional court or constitutional committee. The answer depends on what theoretical approach one may adopt. If one believes judiciary is the best choice for conducting constitutional review, the answer would be no. If one believes in non-judicial means, e.g. popular constitutionalism, the people’s congress system may provide an alternative. As agreed, the concept of constitutionalism is one imported into China from Western countries; their understanding in mainland China is not really different from Western countries. The paper argues in conclusion that the only possibility is that China may adopt different mans to conduct constitutional review in order to achieve constitutionalism. The people’s congress system and the way it has function (negotiative and consultative in nature) and/or to function (maybe also negotiative and consultative) may be something unique to mainland China.
Prof WENG Charlie Xiao-chaun (School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China)
Chinese Corporate Balkanization: the Reality of Political Economy and Competition for Corporate Charters as a Solution
Abstract: In the area of business law, legislatures always lack incentives to enact optimal laws and are reluctant to innovate even if innovation is badly needed in the real business world. This reluctance exists because lawmakers share few of the benefits of producing optimal laws. Competition among states for corporate charters is the genius of American corporate law. This competition has proved to be an effective way to improve the responsiveness of corporate law. In contrast, the EU and Canada have run into bottlenecks when trying to introduce charters competition due to a lack of specific legal expertise in corporate law, Chinese local governments often find themselves with enormous discretion in regulating the local market. Driven by political ambitions, bureaucrats are eager to use any means available to raise local GDP. These methods include some that contradict the policy of the central government and have negative effects on the local community. These practices invite a “race to the bottom” situation and create symbiosis between management and bureaucrats, increasing the likelihood of corruption. Though introducing charters competition, these problems of racing to the bottom can be alleviated and local lawmakers can instead opt to “race to the top.” Given the specific political and economic realities of China, the problems preventing the EU and Canada from adopting charters competition will not haunt China through proper legal arrangement, local provinces may have a chance to promulgate their own corporate laws, even if the corporate law-making power remains in the hands of the national legislature. Given the specific political and economic realities of China, the problems preventing the EU and Canada from adopting charters competition will not haunt China. Professor Weng believes, through proper legal arrangement, local provinces may have a chance to promulgate their own corporate regulations (not laws), even if the corporate law-making power remains in the hands of the national legislature.
The eighth session was a graduate student session chaired by Professor Philip Ivanhoe (Chair Professor of East Asian and Comparative Philosophy and Religion, Department of Public and Social Administration, CUHK) , and included papers by the following scholars:
Mr Jason Buhi (PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
The Constitutionalization of Chinese Foreign Policy during the Hu Jintao Administration
Abstract: To understand the normative aspects of Chinese foreign policy, one must consider China’s dual constitutions. China’s dual constitution system – that is, the nexus of governing power as outlined between the State Constitution and the Communist Party Constitution – provide both jurisdictional and substantive guidance to Chinese foreign policy makers, as well as the highest official statement of the Chinese cultural narrative. While this guidance has existed in letter since 1982, the operative “constitutionalization” of foreign policy norms was especially apparent during the Hu Jintao administration (2002-2012). His government promoted the “Peaceful Development” formulation of Chinese foreign policy in tandem with the substantive constitutionalism of the “Scientific Development Outlook” and its goal of creating a “Socialist Harmonious Society.” As the linkage became more explicit, China’s leaders claimed to join their foreign and domestic policies in an unprecedented way. This apparent seamlessness emanates from a proper application of the official Chinese Communist Party ideological line as refined from the time of Mao Zedong through its most recent manifestation, the Scientific Development Outlook. In this manner, the Chinese constitutional law of foreign policy has theoretically become a unique extraterritorial projection of “the rule of law with Chinese characteristics,” with room for both liberal and realist interpretations for future development. This article begins by introducing the jurisdictional and substantive buses of the Chinese constitutional law of foreign policy. It then recalls the specific contributions of the Hu Administration and explains the linkage between the Scientific Development Outlook, the Socialist Harmonious Society platform, and the Peaceful Development strategy. After that, this article posits how the Chinese constitutions informed foreign policy decision-making regarding some of the biggest challenges of the Hu Jintao era, and predicts that the principal normative challenge that China will face is securing the vast amount of resources it needs to continue developing while maintaining harmonious relations with the rest of the developing world.
Mr Yuan Ye (JD Candidate, Rogers College of Lw, The University of Arizona, USA)
When Socrates Meets Confucius: Teaching Creative and Critical Thinking Across Cultures Through Multilevel Socratic Method
Abstract: This article presents a case study of adapting the Socratic Method, popularized in American law schools, to teach critical thinking skills underemphasized in Chinese universities and group competency skills underemphasized at U.S. institutions. As we propose it here, Multilevel Socratic teaching integrates various levels of individual, small group, and full class critical inquiry, offering distinct pedagogical benefits in Eastern and Western cultural contexts where they separately fall short. After exploring foundational cultural differences underlying the two educational approaches, the article reviews the goals, methods, successes, and challenges encountered in the development of an adapted “Multilevel Socratic” method, concluding with recommendations for further application in both contexts. It is co-authored by an American law professor (Erin Ryan, Professor at Lewis & Clark law school) and four Chinese university students: an undergraduate (Yuan Ye), a master’s degree candidate (Li Haomei), a doctoral candidate (Xin Shuai), and an experienced lecturer in law pursuing advanced graduate studies (You Ran).
Mr Wei Shuai (JSD Candidate, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
Assessment of the Special Tribunals in China: Are We Doomed to Repeat History
Abstract: Studies on the reasons of establishment and abolishment of special tribunals in China are rare. The leading cause for the scarcity is that the previous doctrinal research, which is heavily based on the past literatures, could not convincingly explain why the environmental tribunal is recently revived after years of abolishment. With this issue in mind, this article revisits the entire history of the special tribunals since its first appearance in 1978. The author found that discussions on the establishment and abolishment of special tribunals in China need better to be complemented with the perspectives of the Chinese judges. By empirically using questionnaire surveys and in-depth conversions with 27 Chinese judges in the LL.M. Program at City University of Hong Kong, 8 Chinese judges from ZH city and 12 Chinese judges from XY city for six months, the author concludes that certain types of lawsuits, which are intended to be settled by special tribunals, could in fact be settled by regular tribunals. Financial tribunals and to-be-established securities tribunals are the typical ones. For certain types of disputes with collective actions and public interest, the special tribunals, which are designed to settle these societal disputes, are lack of jurisdictions over them. Distinct from pervious scholarships, the author arrives at the conclusion that the decision-making body of the Chinese judiciary does not comprehend fully on the nature of the special tribunal in China. This is probably the most noticeable Chinese characteristic in the Chinese court for the repeated process of establishment and abolishment of special tribunals.
Miss Zhao Yan (PhD Candidate, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
Public Expression of Individual Entities Between the Cracks:Chinese Migrant Families Protest the Right to Education out of The Household Registration System in the Capital Cities
Abstract: Over 200 million migrants are announced to have left hometowns for flourishing life or economic opportunities into cities since the mid-1990s. Among them, more than 15 million school-age children have lived with migrant parents in the Chinese cities. However, constrained by the Household Registration System (hereinafter the Hukou system), migrant students have been institutionally marginalized from the local education system. A collective claim proposed by migrant families for equal access to education has entered into public view around 2010 and aroused wide concern. Along with the claim, they have also conducted a series of innovate actions to protest the right to education out of the Hukou system, achieved some positive progress as well as confronted new challenges. Unlike previous popular protests for materiality or fair trails, the protest for equal education has its civic characteristics of the contemporary China. Grounded on that, the research argues that such public expression of migrant families taking root in their life scenes, has performed its independent significance for equal right to education regardless of the outcome-orientation, and in the meanwhile responded as individual responsibility for maintaining human dignity. With regards methodology, the research has combined social survey with normative analysis to illustrate the thesis. And the data is from existing literature, news reports, and social investigation reports. Besides, it has also traced the chat records of two Internet QQ groups; one is located in Haidian District, Beijing and the other from Shanghai.
Mr Angelo Ngai (Haverford College, USA)
Cultural Roots of the Rule of Law: Exploring the Possibility of Confucian Legal Order
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to make the argument that Confucian Chinese government capable of upholding the rule of law is possible. We address this question in three phases: 1) characterizing Confucianism’s influence in shaping the cultural logic and values of Chinese people, 2) deducing what kind of legal order Confucian values and cultural logic as the capacity to enable and 3) theorizing whether Confucian legal order has the institutional attributes necessary to uphold the rule of law. Using textual analysis of the Analects, Mencius, and Habermas, we argue that the cultural logic of Constitutional Democracy orients to human beings as discrete units intrinsically isolated from one another while the cultural logic of Confucianism perceives individuals and their welfare to be inherently interconnected within a larger macro-order that precedes formal government. We argue that this fundamental difference, along with several others, results in Confucian values and cultural logic being incompatible with several of Constitutional Democracy’s most important features, such as inalienable individual rights and popular elections. We then speculate on alternative structures Confucianism has the capacity to legitimate, and outline a hypothetical legal-order as an example of how these structures could be used to uphold the rule of law.
Mr. Lyu Kai (PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
Clarify The Legal Basis of China’s Trust Law
Abstract: As a civil law jurisdiction, China’s Trust Law was born with three characteristics: the ambiguous ownership of trust assets; the extensive rights enjoyed by the settlor; and the relative nature and bankruptcy remoteness of the beneficiary’s right. These features are mainly induced by considerations of easy reception and technical feasibility in the course of trust transplantation. However, they bring about theoretical confusions and practical obstacles. The reason of this unintended result is not insufficient rules in the Trust Law but deficient conceptual basis which is necessary to underpin the trust institution. This paper intends to settle this problem by testing three theories and finds that the separate patrimony conceptualizes the Trust Law well. Although this theory is still novel in China, it may be the right direction to improve the Chinese trust in the future.
The ninth session was chaired by Dr. Priscilla Leung (CUHK), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof Zhou Hanhua (Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Science, China)
Reflections on the Administrative Law Development in past Thirty Years in China
Abstract: This essay puts forward that the development of both administrative law and administrative law scholarship can be divide into three stages, and its basic experiences can be summarized as four aspects: firstly, administrative law has been formulated compatible with economic reform; secondly, it has always been the main thee that administrative power should be restricted; thirdly, administrative law can always keep its openness and adaptability; and fourthly, academic organs have been playing very big role during the whole process. This essay illustrates that there are also four challenges ahead, firstly, administrative law cannot fully play its role to push economic development; secondly, there are theoretical shortcomings for them to restrict administrative power in China; thirdly, the mode of legislation-driven development meets its bottleneck, and there is not enough resources to push further legislations; fourthly administrative law scholars don’t have capacity to be critical and theoretical. The essay predicts for development of administrative law in China from four aspects finally.
Prof Ohnesorge John (School of Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)
Mapping Tensions between Industrial Policy and the Rule of Law
Abstract: This paper explores the relationship between Industrial Policy and the Rule of Law, first generally, then with specific application to China. The purpose is to identify challenges that specific industrial policy tools present to the achievement of the Rule of Law in governance. “Industrial Policy” and the “Rule of Law” are both capacious terms, invoked to cover multiple distinct yet related specifics. It is best to understand both terms as having core meanings, but as being contestable at the edges. Industrial policy, for example, would clearly cover a government’s decision to create and fund a new “national champion” aircraft manufacturer, but might not cover tax deductions available to domestic manufacturing firms for R&D. By the same token, the Rule of Lw clearly requires as one if its elements that legal rules must be knowable to some degree before being applied. Yet even with respect to that single facet of the Rule of Law, publically, it would be hard to reach agreement on which specific institutional arrangements would meet the standard, and which would not. To deal with this conceptual complexity, his paper will focus on a variety of industrial policy tools and the specific challenges they present to Rule of Lw governance, first generally, then with respect to China.
Dr Cheng Mai (School of Law, Soochow University, China)
Public Participation in the Administration Process of China: From a Viewpoint of Comparison and Reconsideration
Abstract: Facing the increasingly limited capacity of the law in modern state to transmit the consent of the people to the administrative process, in the late 20th century the interest representation theory has risen in the institution design and practice of administrative law, which encourages the direct participation of the common citizens, i.e. the public participation, to enhance the legitimacy of the executive. In China after 2004 encouraging public participation has also entered the official statement and is apparently receiving more and more attention. Because of the special constitutional and power structure in China, however, such as the dominant role of the CCP in the political life, the executive character of the People’s Congress, the limited political neutrality and authority of the judiciary, and the high politicization of the executive, public participation has the further ask to enhance the legitimacy of not only then executive, public participation has the further tasks to enhance the legitimacy of not only the executive but also the entire state power. Consequently different from the western model, the public participation in the administrative process of China means the absorbing of both the public consent and expertise, while this function is hindered by the lack of the political neutrality of the executive, which restricts the realization of the expected goal, and the public participation in many cases can only serve to promote the formal rather than the substantial legitimacy of the government. In some fields like the environmental movement, in contrast, with the somewhat substantial interaction among the local and central government, and the environmental NGOs, the public participation might have more prospect of success and presents a good example.
Prof Lu Zhian (School of Law, Fudan University, China)
Conducting Reform and Innovation under the Principle of Rule of Law in China
Abstract: Chinese new leaders, when they took the positions in March 2013, vowed to strengthen rule of law in State governance and to accelerate reform and innovation in development. Rule of law requires that any action taken in particular by government must have legal ground and shall be in accordance with law. At the meantime, reform and innovation encourage government to break through some existing systems, rules which are barriers to the development and to try something new that has no legal basis. These rules are part of law in broad sense in China. That implies that government has to face with such a dilemma that it has to break the rule that it must abide by or that government must take innovative actions without legal authorization. This leads to that government officials and/or cadres, who are responsible to undertake reform and innovation and who are committed to take actions in term of law, are not enthusiastic to act dynamically in undertaking reform and innovation as they are worried that they would bear responsibility and liability for the breach of law if the reform and innovation is not successful. This problem has no doubt negative impact on reform and innovation. This problem can only be resolved in the context law. In April 2013, Shanghai municipal government initiated a legislative act to cope with this situation. The proposed act encourages undertaking reform and innovation by exempting the responsibility and liability to those who undertake reform and innovation if the reform and innovation is not succeed. The act was reviewed and discussed by the third conference of the Standing Committee of 14th Shanghai people’s Congress but not yet accepted. Nevertheless, it was cheered by the public. This implied that it is time to put reform and innovation in the context of the rule of law. The idea and way of Shanghai to deal with problems resulted from reform and innovation reflected their awareness of the spirit of rule of law. But merely exemption of responsibility and liability is arguable. Since fore-mentioned issue is of nation-wide, we need a nation law on reform and innovation. And we also need an effect solution which could reinforce rule of law, safeguard reform and innovation and reduce the social cost.
The tenth session was chaired by Professor YU Xingzhong (School of Law Cornell University USA), and included papers by the following scholars:
Prof Dong Hao (School of Law, Guangzhou University, China)
The Leased-Land under the Jurisdiction of SAR: An innovative Mode for Regional Cooperation----Far Thoughts from eth Legal Aspect on the Land in Hengqin Island by Macao SAR
Abstract: The trial of the leased-land under the jurisdiction of Macao SAR, Hengqin Island, as a campus of University of Macau, is a breakthrough innovation of the implementation of “one country, two systems,” which indicates a feasibility for exploring new cooperation mode among Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao under current legal system of China. Due to the two legal characteristics of the aforesaid leased-land as lease and jurisdiction, the governance on that by the SAR shall be based on the authority of the NPC Standing Committee, with the application of SAR laws as the principle, as well as following the agreements in the lease contract. Therefore, the establishment of the aforesaid leased-land shall follow the strict procedure as: motion making, reviewing and eventually adopting. The new regional cooperation mode, illustrating by the land of Hengqin Island by Macao SAR, is significant in theory as well as in practice for further spreading, which will help to advance the development and cooperation between mainland China and the two SARs, for the achievement of a win-win, mutual beneficiary and multilateral participation situation.
Prof Jeffrey E. Thomas (School of Law, University of Missouri – Kansas, USA)
Rule of Law in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: comparisons and exploration of cultural variables.
Abstract: A comparison of Rule of Law in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan provides a unique opportunity to consider the cultural influence on Rule of Law and to explore what it means to have “Chinese” characteristics. This paper will being by gathering the quantitative rule of law data (World Bank, World Justice Index, etc.) and comparing the three jurisdictions. It will then use the frame or perspective of culture to explore the similarities and differences between the three countries. The data will be presented using a quantitative visual representation of five discrete elements of Rule of Law with metric developed from a combination of measures currently in use. The five elements are: 1) Supremacy of Law, 2) the use of Rules, 3) Rights, 4) methods for dispute resolution, and 5) respect for the law.
Prof Yang Hua (School of Law, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China)
On Cooperation of the Regional Administrative Enforcement ---From the Example of Zhujiang River Delta Region’s Cooperation
Abstract: Cooperation of the regional administrative enforcement is an important part of regional legal system construction, an integral requirement to bring about a coordinated development of regional economy, and an effective measures of maintaining the justice and efficiency of administrative enforcement. In view of the issues existing in the cooperation of the regional law enforcement, we ought to strengthen the concept of law enforcement cooperation, improve the mechanism of law enforcement cooperation, play the role of “soft law” in law enforcement , perfect “hard law” regulation and establish a coordinated Regulatory authority in law enforcement cooperation, etc. The above measures are to promote regional law enforcement cooperation achieving good results, to enhance the level of regional construction of the rule of law and to speed up the progress the rule of law in China.
The conference ended with a closing ceremony and address by Professor HE Xin, Associate Director, Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law, School of Law, CUHK.
Conference Participant Bios:
BUHI, Jason Gerald is a Ph.D. Candidate in Comparative Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He is a current recipient of the Hong Kong Postgraduate Fellowship Award and a former Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholar from the United States to the People’s Republic of China (2007-2008). He is licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., and before the United States Supreme Court. He earned his J.D. from the Pennsylvania State University in 2006, where he served as Executive Editor of the Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, and finished first in his class in constitutional law. His current research areas include comparative Sino-American constitutional law, the constitutional law of foreign policy, and state capitalism as practiced by sovereign wealth funds. He has served as a research associate for both Professor Lin Feng (City U) and Professor Larry Catá Backer (Penn State). He has also served as a judicial law clerk and as counsel. In November 2012, he received a Chow Fellowship from the Overseas Young Chinese Forum to visit the Northwest University of Politics and Law in Xi’an. While there he taught a seminar in comparative U.S. constitutional law for the doctoral students of Professor Dong Heping. A list of his publications are available on the Social Science Research Network at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1272027.
CAI Lidong, PhD of Law (Jilin University) presently is: Professor of School of Law, Jilin University; Professor of the Center for Jurisprudence Research of Jilin University;Associate Dean of School of Law, Jilin University; Legal Consultant of the People’s Government of Jillin Providence; Arbitrator of Shenzhen Arbitration Committee; Arbitrator of Changchun Arbitration Committee; Part-time Layer of Jilin Jiwei Law Firm; Visiting Scholar on Corporate Law at London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) 2007-2008. Areas of Expertise: Basic Theories of Civil Law; Contract Law; Corporate Law; Representative Works: Study on Corporate Autonomy, Beijing University Press, Oct. 2006; From the Suppressing Administrative Model to the One of Responsive, Chinese Journal of Law, 2003(3); Administrative Permission and the Effectiveness of Rights Transfer Contract, China Legal Science, 2013(1)
Dr. jur. CHENG Mai is a docent from the Soochow University, China. Mr. Cheng’s major research field is constitutional law and political party law etc. Mr. Cheng obtained his PhD in 2011 from the Peking University. He has made several academic visits to some universities in European countries, including the University of Fribourg, Switzerland; the University Utrecht, Holland; the University of Deusto, Spain; the Humboldt University of Berlin and the University of Dusseldorf, Germany. Mr. Cheng was an awardee of the German Chancellor Fellowship (2011) of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. He was also a research Fellow of the Institute of German and International Party Lw and Party Research. Mr. Cheng’s working foreign languages are English and German. He has published several papers on the fundamental theory and practices of the political party law, such as the status of political parties in modern constitution, the influence of party activities on political stability and performance of constitutionalism, the practices of the public funding to political parties etc. Mr. Cheng’s research interest of the Chinese constitutional law is in the political participation, organization and rights.
DEVA Surya is an Associate Professor at the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong. He holds a BA (Hons.), LBB and LLM degrees from the University of Delhi and PhD from the University of Sydney, and has taught previously at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. His primary research interests lie in Corporate Social Responsibility, Indo-Chinese Constitutional Law, International Hujan Rights, Globalization, and Sustainable Development. He has published numerous book chapters and journal articles in these are s and also prepared two major reports on Access to Justice: Human Rights Abuses Involving Corporations (concerning India and China) for the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Geneva. Recent and forthcoming books include Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? (co-editor with David Bilchitz) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics, Public Opinion and Practices (co-editor with Roger Hood) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); and Regulating Corporate Human Rights Violations: Humanizing Business (London/New York: Routledge, 2012). He is also the Founding Faculty Editor of the City University of Hong Kong Law Review.
Dong Hao, male, was born in Yanchang County of Shanxi Province in 1956. He is the Doctor of Laws, Research Professor of the Public Law Research Center, Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor, and Vice-Rector of Guangzhou University. Academic Qualifications: Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program in Law, 2004, Law Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Social Science; PhD in law, 1998, Wuhan University; LLM, 1991, China University of Political Science and Law; Bachelor of Law, 1983, NorthWest University of Politics and Law. Related Working Experience: Lawyer of Legal Advisor Office in Yan An Municipality of Shan Xi Province, Deputy Director of Yan An Municipal Judicial Bureau, Shan Xi Province, Jul. 1983; Deputy Director of the Research Office, Associate Chief Judges and Chief Judge in Administrative Division of the Intermediate People’s Court, Vice President of Intermediate People’s Court, Sept. 1985; Chief Judge in Case Filing Division and Administrative Divisions of the Guang Dong Higher People’s Court, Jul. 2000; President of the Zhuhai Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, Deputy Secretary of the Committee of Political Science and Law under the CPC Zhuhai Municipal Committee, Mar. 2004; Vice-Rector and Research Professor of Guangzhou University, Research Fellow of the Research Center for Public Law, 2009. Professional Affiliations: Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor of Wuhan University; Master Degree Supervisor of Guangzhou University; Research Center for Public Law of Guangzhou University; Adjunct Professor of China University of Political Science and Law; Adjunct Research Fellow of Research Center for Administrative Lw of China National School of Administration; Vice-President of China Administrative Law Association; Standing Director of China Behavior Law Association; Standing Director of China Society for Human Rights Studies; Vice-President of Guangdong Law Science Association; Honorary President of Constitutional Law Association of Guangdong Law Society; Honorary President of Administration Law Association of Guangdong Law Society; Honorary President of Guangdong Association of Legal Education; One of Guangdong’s Ten Outstanding Young and Middle-Aged Legal Scholars. Research Area: Constitutional Law and Administrative Law; Judicial System; Jurisprudence. Selected Books: On Judicial Interpretation, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2007; On Conflict of Laws Issues, the Commercial Press, 2013; The Construction of Judicial Interpretation in China, 2009; The Tactics and Methods of Civil Execution, The People’s Court Press, 2009. Besides, Professor Dong has authored or edited more than 30 books including On the Judicial Mode and Method of Judiciary, Report on China’s Judiciary practicing on frontline, On Administrative Behavior Law, New Rational Theory of Administrative Law, Administrative Law and Administrative Procedural Law. Selected Articles: Professor Dong has published more than 50 articles about constitutional law, administrative law, administrative procedural law and judicial system on China’s top Journals in Law and CSSCI Law Journals, such as Chinese Journal of Law, China Legal Science and Tribune of Political Science and Law. Major Research Projects: Leader and Chief Expert of China’s Evaluation Index System of Judicial Structure Reform, Major Project Funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China in 2011; Leader and Chief Expert of Judicial Interpretation System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Planning Project funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China in 2009; Leader and Chief Expert of Judicial Jurisprudence of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Sub-Program of Major Project Funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China in 2010; Leader and Chief Expect of Investigation and Research on Construction of Deterrent Mechanism, Major Project Funded by the Supreme People’s Court of China in 2006.
JIANG Guo-Hua; ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT: Mainly engaged in lecturing and researching of constitution and administrative law; Professor and the tutor of doctoral students, Wuhan University; Chief expert of Center of Cooperative Innovation for Judicial Civilization (CCIJC), China University of Political Science, Jilin University, Wuhan University; Chief expert of the research on the judicial system of socialism with Chinese characteristic (2009 annual national major bidding project of philosophy and social science). MAJOR PUBLICATIONS: Articles (Sample) In recent years, more than 60 academic articles were published, ‘The common sense and rationality: towards the practice of socialist justice in China’ series; ‘The constitutional philosophy’ series; ‘Legislative theory’ series. Books: An introduction to the constitutional philosophy. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2008; The constitution and civil education. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2009; Legislation: ideal and revolution. Jinan: Shandong People’s Publishing House, 2007; Administrative law of China. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2012; The metaphysics of constitution. Wuhan: Wuhan Press, 2004; The physical of constitution: constitution in daily life. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2007; Edited Books (Sample): ‘Constitutional review’ series of books: Gaming and compromising: a review on preparation for the constitution in late Qing dynasty; From the tool selection to the value of identity: a review on constitutional movements in Republic of China; Bottom-up constitutional attempts: a review on provincial constitutions; Progress in the twist and turns: a review on socialist constitutionalism movements in People’s Republic of China (PRC); All published by Wuhan University Press in 2010.
LI Baoping was born in Guyuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. He was graduated from Ningxia University and East China Normal University in sequence. He won the master of law. He holds the post of the director and researcher of Legal Sociology in Ningxia Academy of Social Sciences at present. He engaged himself in the research on Legal Sociology and Ethnic Law for periods. He presided over a national social science fund project (2007), a research subject of the Ministry of Civil Affair, a research subject on the soft science of Ninxia Hui Autonomous Region and several research topics on major real issues of Ningxia in Ninxia Academy of Social Sciences successfully. He has published over 50 professional essays in the journals of all types and levels. He takes part-time job as a lawyer in Ningxia Yancheng Law Firm.
LI Yuwen is a Professor of Chinese Law and the Director of the Erasmus China Law Centre at the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. She holds a BA in Chinese Law from Peking University, an MA in International Law and International Relations from the Institute of Social Studies, and a PhD in International Law from Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Since 2001, she has acted as co-director of a number of legal collaborative projects with numerous Chinese institutions, including the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the National Judges College, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Law School of Wuhan University. Currently, she is supervising a number of Chinese PhD candidates who are writing on various legal topics from comparative perspectives. She is also on the panel list of Arbitrators on the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration in the PRC. Her recent publications include: NGOs in China and Europe: Comparison and Contrasts (editor) (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011); Taking Employment Discrimination Seriously: Chinese and European Perspectives (editor with Jenny Goldschmidt) (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009).
Dr. LIN Feng, LLB (Fudan University), LLM (Victoria University of Wellington), PhD (Peking University), Associate Professor, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Director of Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law, City University of Hong Kong, Barrister (HKSAR).
LU Zhian is an Associate Professor in the School of Law at Fudan University in Shanghia, China. He received his Bachelor of Law in Science of Law from Fudan University in 1987, Master of Law in International Economic Law from Fudan University in 1990, and his Ph.D. in International Relations from Fudan University in 2001. He studied EU law in the University Glamorgan in 1998-99 and international human rights law in Nottingham University in 2000 in the United Kingdom. He was a visiting scholar in Yale University and in Baltimore University in the United States and in Graduate Institute for High International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. His research has covered such topics as: international law, human rights, humanitarian law, EU law, international environmental law, and international economic law. He published many papers in international journals and Chinese legal journals. Dr. Lu is a Chinese licensed lawyer in Pudong Law Office in Shanghai.
LYU Kai is a PhD candidate in Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include securitization, Chinese trust law and market microstructure. His dissertation tentatively titled “The Post-Crisis Legal Framework of Securitization in China” studies structures, laws and reforms of securitization after the 2008 financial crisis and aims to propose a stable, efficient and dynamic framework for Chinese securitization industry. Mr. Lyu received his LLM in Commercial Law from the University of Edinburgh and LLB from the East China University of Politics and Law.
MO Shijian, Faculty of Law, Macau University, Macau SAR;Chair Professor, Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Macau; Bachelor of Law 1978, Jilin University; LLM 1984 Dalhousie University; PhD in Law 1991, Sydney University; LLB 1995, Monash University. Professor Mo worked in Deakin University, Australia; City University of Hong Kong; and China University of Political Science and Law prior to his appointment as the Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Macau. Between 2005 and 2011, Professor Mo was the Dean of Faculty of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law. Professor Mo is presently a Member of Governing Council of UNIDROIT (2009-2013); Associate Member of International Academy of Comparative Law; Member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration; member of the LCIA Asia Pacific Users’ Council, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Vice President of China Society for International Economic Law; Arbitrator of China International Economic and Trade Commission; Arbitrator of China Maritime Arbitration Commission; Arbitrator of Shenzhen Arbitration Commission; Advisor to China Coastal Guard Law Enforcement Centre: Adjunct Professor of City University of Hong Kong Law School; Adjunct Research Fellow of Hong Kong WTO Research Centre; Member of the Academic Committee of the National Research Centre for Air Traffic Management Law and Standard; Barrister at the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia; and Barrister and Solicitor at the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. Professor Mo has authored or edited 15 books and one of his books, International Commercial Law is in its 5th edition in 2013. He has also published more than 150 articles in both English and Chinese language.
NAPEL, Hans-Martien ten Napel is an Associate Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands, where he is also Research Fellow of the Leiden Law School. From 1985 until 2000, he taught at the Department of Political Science. During most of 1992, he was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard University, USA. Since 2008, he has also been a senior researcher at the School of Human Rights Research. He has taught 75+ courses on, and has written extensively about, Dutch political and parliamentary history and constitutional law. His current fields of expertise include Dutch government and politics, political rights, freedom of religion, comparative constitutional law, and church and state. He is the author of a book on Dutch Christian Democracy and co-editor and co-author of twenty other books, edited volumes and special issues. In addition, he has published some 70 chapters in books, 50+ articles in journals, as well as book reviews, case notes, and other articles in these fields. His work has recently appeared in European Constitutional Law Review, European Public Law, Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, Muslim World Journal of Human Rights and Oxford Journal of Law and Religion.
NGAI, Angelo graduated from Haverford College in 2013 with a B.A. in Sociology. His research interests center around the sociology of law, political philosophy and jurisprudence. His recent work has focused on characterizing how perception of legal legitimacy changes across different cultural contexts, and theorizing on the political implications of these differences. Angelo is very interested in the contemporary social, economic and legal transformations going on in the People’s Republic of China, especially because of his belief that observation of china’s empirical transformations can be applied to changing and improving our theoretical understanding of the intersection between law, economics and culture. Subsequently, Angelo has spent as much time as possible on the ground in mainland China, studying in Beijing and Harbin and teaching English in Nanjing and rural Sichuan. He hopes to continue to have the opportunity to improve his knowledge of Chinese language and culture, and wishes to eventually return to china to conduct sociology.
NI Fei is an Associate Professor of Law Scholl of Nanjing Normal University and a Researcher of Jiangsu Academy of Development of Rule of Law. PhD., China’s Academy of Social Science (2009); MA., Huaqiao University (2006); BA., Anhui Normal University (2002). Dr. Ni Fei commenced his teaching career at Law Department of Anhui Normal University in 2002 and joined Nanjing Normal University in 2011. He was a Visiting Scholar at College of Law at National Chengchi University in 2008. His research interest includes land condemnation law, social assistance law and fiscal law.
OHNESORGE, John: PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS: Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School (Assistant Professor, 2001 - 2007); Director, East Asian Legal Studies Center, University of Wisconsin Law School (2010 - present); Chair, Wisconsin China Initiative (2008 - present); Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School (Pacific Legal Community Seminar, Spring, 2000, with Professor William P. Alford); Senior Fellow, Graduate Program/East Asian Legal Studies Program, Harvard Law School (1996 - 97); Teaching Assistant, Legal Writing Workshop, Harvard Law School Graduate Program (1995 - 96; 1996 - 97); Legal English Instructor, Law Faculty, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (spring term, 1988); English Instructor, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China (1985 - 86). RESEARCH AND TEACHING INTERESTS: Courses Taught: Administrative Law; Business Organizations I & II; Seminars on Comparative Corporate, Governance, Chinese Law, and Law & Economic Development, Research Interests: Administrative law; corporate law; law and economic development; Asian comparative law and legal history; international trade; jurisprudence. EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA S.J.D. (2002); LL.M. (1995); University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN J.D., cum laude (1989); St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN B.A. (1985). LEGAL PRACTICE: Clerk to the Honorable Rya W. Zobel; United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2000 - 2001); Assistant to Professor William P. Alford as member of NAFTA dispute settlement panel (1996); Private Practice, Seoul, Korea (1990-1994).
THOMAS, Jeffrey E., J.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1986; B.A., Magna Cum Ladue, Loyola Marymount University, 1983;Professor of Law, Daniel L. Brenner Faculty Scholar, University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law (Current Position); Fulbright Fellow, Immanuel Kant State University, Kaliningrad, Russia, Spring 2010; Fulbright Fellow, Nankai University, Tainjin, China, 1999-2000;Associate, Irell & Manella, Newport Beach, California, 1992-1993, 1987-1991; Bigelow Teaching Fellow, University of Chicago Law School, 1991-1992; Law Clerk, M. Joseph Blumenfeld, U.S. District Court, District of Conn., 1986-1987; Selected Rule of Law publications: Making and Amending Constitutions: Comparative Rule of Law Perspectives on Turkey’s Constitutional Reform, in Essays in Comparative Constitutional Law: A Route map of a New Constitution for Turkey (forthcoming); An American Professor in China: Thoughts on the Future of the Rule of Law, The Frontier of Science and Society (May2001) (in Chinese); Selected Rule of Law Presentations: Rule of Law in a Global, Pluralistic Legal System, First International Conference on Comparative Law and Global Common Law, China U. of Political Science & Law, Beijing, September 24, 2011;Cultural Thoughts on Challenges Inherent in Identifying Traditional Fundamental Values, Learning from Tradition: Tribal Justice and the Rule of Law, U of Washington, June 17, 2011; Understanding the Rule of Law/Supremacy of Law and Underlying Obstacles in Turkey and Around the World, International Congress on Constitutional Law, Istanbul, May 12, 2011.
TONG, Zhiwei, Professional Experience: May, 2005-present, TONG Zhiwei, Professor of Law, East China University of Political Science and Law; Vice President of Constitutional Law Society of China. December, 2001 to May, 2005, Professor of Law and acting dean, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Law; Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of China Law Society; November 1197 to December, 2001, Professor of law, Central China Institute of Politics and Law; Editor-in-chief, Faculty Journal of Law and Commerce; June, 1995 to November 1997, Associate professor, Wuhan University School of Public Administration and Politics; July, 1987 to May, 1995, Lecturer, Wuhan University School of Law. Education Background: September, 1991 to July, 1994, Ph.D. from Wuhan University in law. July, 1989, Master, from Wuhan University in law; Publications: Books: 1. Constitutional Law, Tsinghua University Press, 2008; 2. Forms of State Structure, Wuhan University Press, 1997; 3. Faquan and Constitutional government, Shandong People’s Publishing House, 2001; 4. Textbook on Local Governments (co-author), High Education Press, 1994; 5. Theory and Practice of Human Rights (co-author), Wuhan University Press, 1995; 6. Textbook on Constitutional Law (co-author), Law Press, 1997; 7. General Theory of Civil Servants (co-author), Wuhan University Press, 1997; 8. Hot Topics on Human Rights and Contemporary Constitutionalism (co-author), Kunlun Press, 2001. Representative Articles: 1. A Comment on the Rise and Fall of the Supreme People’s Court’s Reply to Qi Yuling’s Case, SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLIII:nnn; 4/12/2010; 2. An Interpretation of “the Court Adjudicates according to Law”, China Legal Science no.6, 2009; 3. The Application of Constitution Should Abide by the Ways Provided by Constitution Itself, China Legal Science, no.6, 2008. 4. Prospects for the Near Future of the Constitutional System in China, Modern Law Science, no.3, 2008. 5. On Chinese Constitutional Law Teaching and Research, Science of Law, no. 6, 2007. 6. The Keypoint is the Elimination of the Unconstitutionality and the Promulgation of the Laws on the basis of the Constitution, Legal Science, no. 8, 2007. 7. Repeal of “Theory of Unconstitutional Reforms Being Reasonable” Should be Cautious: Some Proof Found in the Plot Direction Election of Township Head in Recent Years Jurists Review, no. 4, 2007. 8. How to Properly Assess the Legislation Process of the Property Law: Response to Prof. Zhao Wanyi and et al, Legal Science, no.4, 2007. 9. Thinking of renewing several basic legal concepts, Law Review, no.2, 2007. 10. The Rule of “According to Constitution, Making this Law” Is Correct, China Legal Science, no. 1, 2007. 11. Real and Unreal Images of the Relation of Constitutional And Civil Laws, China Legal Science, no.6, 2006. 12. Constitution is the fundamental law for distribution law and regulating its operation behaviors, Shandong Social Sciences, no.8, 2006. 13. Draft Property Law Revisited: Constitutional Issues and Their Solutions, Legal Science, no.7, 2006. 14. How should the Property Law Draft Pass the Door of the Constitution, Legal Science, no. 3, 2006. 15. Legal Problems Relating to Religious Projects Financed by Local Governments, Legal Science, no. 11, 2005. 16. Views on Japanese unconstitutional Examination Theory, Law Science, no. 6, 2005. 17. On Japan’s Regime of Review of Unconstitutionality and Its Implications, Law Review no. 4, 2005. 18. “One Constitutional Topic Worthy of Noting—Comparative view of Forms of the State Structure,” Legal Studies, no. 4, 1993; 19. “Rethinking Several Basic Issues on Human Rights,” Law Commentaries, no. 2, 1993; 20. “Reforming our Thoughts on the Methodologies of Constitutional Theory”, Jurisprudence, no 9, 1994. 21. “Historical Survey on Formulation of State Structure Form from Perspective of Constitution,” Journal of Wuhan University, no.4, 1995; 22. “Theoretical Value and Practical Option for Federalism and Unified Statehood,” Legal Studies, no. 4, 1996. 23. “Comments and Forward Looking: the Science of Constitution Facing Twenty First Century,” legal Commentaries, no. 6, 1997. 24. “Second Comments on Rebirth of Jurisprudence”, Jurisprudence, no. 2, 1999. 25. “Reflecting the Law and Right Centered Theory”, Law Science of China, no. 6, 2000. 26. “Recommendations on Upcoming Constitutional Amendments and the Direction of Constitutional Reform,” Legal System and Social Development, no.4, 2003.
WEBSTER, Tim is Assistant Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University, where he teaches Chinese Law, and International Law. His research examines the intersections of international law and comparative law, with a focus on East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan). He has published on the human rights impact of Chinese investment in Africa, health discrimination in China, racial discrimination in Japan, free trade agreements in East Asia, transnational litigation over war crimes, and the use of international human rights law in domestic courts. His scholarship has appeared in the Berkeley, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Penn and Vanderbilt international law journals, among others. He has presented his research in Mandarin, Japanese and English to audiences in a dozen jurisdictions. Professor Webster began his academic career as a Lecturer-in-Law at Yale Law School. He also worked at Yale’s China Law Center, designing and implementing legal reform projects with government officials, public interest lawyers, academics and judges in the PRC. He has taught law at Cornell Law School, U.C. Berkeley, and Whittier Law School; and had been a visiting scholar Zhejiang University Law School. He is presently a visiting scholar and professor at National Taiwan University. Previously, he practiced transnational litigation in the Tokyo and New York offices of Morrison Foerster, and clerked for Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston.
WEI Shuai is the J.S.D. candidate at School of Law, City University of Hong Kong. He is also serving a research position as Senior Research Associate starting early 2012. Mr. WEI has been a registered lawyer in P.R. China since 2007. His research interest is in Law and Society, Law and Technology. Mr. WEI is a frequent invited speaker on numerous international conferences organized by Cornell University, U.C. Berkeley, Oxford University and Peking University.
WENG Charlie Xiao-chaun CURRENT POSITION:KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Research Professor Yale Law School, New Haven, CT; Robert S. McNamara Fellow (the World Bank), September 2011 to present; Visiting Researcher, Sponsor: Prof. Roberta Romano, July 2011 to September 2011; Fellowship, Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law; Senior Editor, Yale Journal on Regulation. PUBLICATIONS ENGLISH: “Chaining 800-pound Gorillas: Unregulated State Controlling Shareholders and Emerging Private Control in China,” selected as conference paper by Cornell Inter-University Graduate Student Conference, under review; “Chinese Shareholder Protection and the Influence from the US Law: the Idiosyncratic Economic Realities and Mismatched Agency Problem Solutions,” (2012, Securities Regulation Law Journal, (SSCI) forthcoming, selected paper for presentation on the 1st Yale Law School Doctoral Conference, also selected for presentation at the Yale Chinese Forum (New Haven) and Penn Law SJD Scholarship Forum (Philadelphia)); “Lifting the Veil of Words: An Analysis of the Efficacy of Chinese Takeover Laws and the Road to the Harmonious Society,” (Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 2012, forthcoming); “To Be, Rather Than to Seem: Analysis of Trustee Fiduciary Duty in Reorganization and Its Implications on the New Chinese Bankruptcy Law,” 45 The International Lawyer 647 (2011); Reprinted by Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice (2011); “Introductions and Suggestions to the Chinese Securities Credit Rating System from a Comparative Perspective,” East Asia Law Review Vol. 6, Issue 2 (with Xu, 2011); “Assessing the Applicability of the Business Judgment Rule and „Defensive‟ Business Judgment Rule in the Chinese Judiciary: A Perspective on Takeover Case Adjudications,” 34 Fordham International Law Journal 124 (2010); MANDARIN: 天使还是魔鬼?--对冲基金积极主义在公司治理中的利弊分析及在中国前景之展望 [Angel or Demon: the Role of Hedge Funds Activism in Chinese Corporate Governance and Its future] in 证券法苑 [Securities law Review] (with Ni & Lu, Law Press, 2010); 面临挑战的抉择:美国次贷危机金融立法改革评述与对中国金融立法的启示 [Decision Facing Challenges: Comments on the New Financial Deal of the American Financial Crises and the Inspirations to China] in 金融法制前沿[The Herald of Rule of Law on Finance] (The Second China Financial Adjudication Symposium Excellent Working Paper, China Law Press, 2010); 金融危机下信用评级机构之改革分析理路 [Road to the Reform of Chinese Credit Rating System] in 金融法苑 [Financial Law Review] (with Lu & Ni, Peking University Press, 2011);美国外部董事薪酬形式变更及对我国的启示[The Survey of American Independent directors‟; Compensation History and Its Inspirations to Chinese Legislation,] 74 华东政法大学学报 [Journal of East China University of Politics and Law] (won the second award of China Law Press Essay Competition, with Lu, 2008); 公司法人人格否认制度与单位犯罪主体资格否认规则之比较 [Survey and Analysis on the History of Corporate Crime Culpability and the Theory of Piercing the Corporate Veil,] in 法学 新问题探讨2007 [The Study on New Issues of Law Science 2007] (Peking University Press, 2007);一人公司的刑事主体地位辨析 [Culpability of Single Owner Company,] 6 上海师范大学学报 [Journal of Shanghai Normal University] (2007); 侵占遗忘物与盗窃遗忘物的区别辨析: 对‘二重控制说’适用的探究 [Anatomy of the Double Control Theory in Economic Crime,] in法学新问题探讨2006 [The Study on New Issues of Law Science 2006] (Peking University Press, 2006); 试析挪用资金罪若干问题 [Anatomy of Business Embezzlement,] in法学新问题探讨2005 [The Study on New Issues of Law Science 2005] (Peking University Press, 2005). EDUCATION: The University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA S.J.D., expected May 2012 (Supervisors: Prof. David A. Skeel & Prof. Jacques deLisle; East Asia Law Review, Associate Editor); LL.M., May 2009 (Dean Scholarship; Wharton Business and Law Certificate; University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, International Editor); National University of Singapore Faculty of Law, Singapore LL.M., July 2008( Area of Specialization: International Business Law); East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China Jur. Master, May 2007(Distinction Area of Specialization: Corporate Law & White Collar Crime).
XIA Zhenglin, PHD, Deputy Dean and Associate Professor of School of Law, South China University of Technology, Director of Research Center of The Basic Law of Hong Kong and Macao. Research fields: theories of the public law. Social service: councilor of China Constitutional Law Society, standing councilor of Guangdong Constitutional Law Society, commentators of “rule of law in Guangdong” (http://www.fzgd.org/).
XIAO Shi Jie; Professional Title: Professor; Work Unit: Human Rights Research Centre in Guangzhou University; Administrative Duties: Assistant Director. Education: LLB, Middle-South College of Political Science & Law; MA. And Ph.D. of Law, Faculty of Law in Xiangtan University; Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Law in the Chinese Academy of Social Science. Research Interest: Chinese and Comparative Law, Human Rights Law, the Criminal Law
XING Lijuan, a Chinese lawyer and legal scholar trained in both the PRC and the USA, is an assistant professor at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law. She earned her LL.B. and LL.M. degrees from Dalian Maritime University School of Law and her Ph.D. in Economics from Dongbei University of Finance and Economics before undertaking advanced U.S. legal studies at the University of Kansas, where she earned her S.J.D. degree in 2012. She has taught courses in both Chinese and English focusing on international and comparative law, international economic law, Chinese law, and Sino-U.S. trade relations; she has also presented lectures on globalization, the international rule of law, Chinese legal history, and international economic institutions. Dr. Xing is the co-author (with John W. Head) of LEGAL TRANSPARENCY IN DYNASTIC CHINA: THE LEGALIST-CONFUCIANIST DEBATE AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN CHINESE TRADITION (forthcoming 2013), and has written numerous book chapters and law journal articles on a variety of topics.
XU Zhangrun joined Tsinghua Law School in 2000 and was appointed to a professorship in the jurisprudence in 2001. He received PhD from University of Melbourne in jurisprudence and history and studied in SWUPL and CUPL from where he received LLB and LLB respectively. He worked as an associated professor since 1992 in CUPL before he joined Tsinghua. He is the foundation Director of Tsinghua Centre for Legal Theory and Political Philosophy since 2002, and editor-in-chief of Journal of Historical Jurisprudence. His teaching and research has focused on legal theory and political philosophy, in particular, historical jurisprudence and liberal nationalism through perspective of republicanism. His recent publications include The Reason of State in Modern China (Law Press, 2011) and co-edited Asking Better Governance (Law Press, 2012). He is currently working on a project exploring the legal-political aspects of transformational history of modern China since 1860s.
YANG Hua. Yang was born in Dawu, Hubei Province, PhD, Professor of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Law School, Tutor of Masters, member of Chinese Administrative Law Research Institute, member of the Administrative Law Research Institute of Hubei Province, member of Administrative Law Research Institute of Guangdong Province. Yang specializes in the teaching and research work of Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation Law, Constitutional Law, major works including: E-government and Rule of Administrative law, Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation, Study of Constitution and other four specialized textbooks; published more than 30 academic articles in Journal of Wuhan University, Administrative Law Review, etc. presided over one National Social Science Fund Project, one of the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Science Fund Project, involved with one key project of the Ministry of Education and other projects of National and provincial subject research.
YE Yuan, JD candidate at University of Arizona law school, LLB candidate in Ocean University of China, school of law and political science, coauthor of the accepted paper, “When Socrates Meets Confucius: Teaching Creative and Critical Thinking Across Through Multilevel Socratic Method”, forthcoming at Nebraska Law Review 2014. In Chinese law school and American law school, my specializations are environmental law, energy law, climate change policy, and comparative law. I used to be an intern at Pacific Environment, an international environmental NGO based at San Francisco, California. During the internship, I researched and wrote memoranda on Chinese regional mining and river pollution issues, and translated many environmental reports made by Chinese partners. Last year, I was research assistant to American Fulbright professor, Erin Ryan, and took many US law classes from her. Together with other Chinese students, we explored how to effectively use traditional Socratic Method in Chinese law classes and how to inspire Chinese students to think critically and creatively with new legal pedagogy. This paper is not only about theory, but more about experience on how ordinary Chinese law students struggled at the beginning but eventually got used to a new way of thinking through effective legal pedagogy.
YI Liao, born in 1980, associate professor of Law School, Wuhan University. Professor Liao teaches jurisprudence, law and society, legal profession ethics, law and logic, and comparative law. In 2010, he was named the Luojia Youth Scholar of Wuhan University. He is also a district judge of Wuhan City. Professor Liao has published and spoken widely on China’s judicial reform. He has published more than 60 articles on international and Chinese journals. His publications also include On Judicial Equilibrium, Training Manual of Legal Ethics, Political Civilization and Rule of Law State (co-edited), and On Judicial Power (co-edited).
YU Xingzhong is the Anthony W. and Lulu C. Wang Professor in Chinese Law at the Cornell Law School. His academic interests include Chinese law and legal history, social theory, comparative legal philosophy, constitutional law, and cultural studies of law. Prior to joining Cornell Law School, he was with the Faculty of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) where he taught jurisprudence, constitutional law and Chinese law. He holds an LLM and SJD from Harvard Law School, and while there was a lecturer on law, senior research fellow in East Asian Legal Studies, and visiting associate professor. He has held various visiting academic positions at Beijing University’s Department of Law, Jilin University, Shandong University, Northwest University of Politics and Law, Columbia Law School, and the Australian National University. He was the Wang Distinguished Visiting Professor at Cornell Law School in the fall semester of 2010. He is the author of numerous articles and three books, including Rule of Law and Civil Orders (2006).
Zhou Hanhua, professor of law, is a researcher in the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, an academic research institution and also the think tank of China’s central government. Professor Zhou has over 20 years of experience in research and practices in law and government regulation, and has held numerous positions including Vice Chairman of China Information Law Society, vice Chairman of the Labor Protection Supervision Committee of China Labor society, Executive Board Member of China Administrative Law Society and Energy Law Society; Member of the Advisory Committee for State Informatization; Member of the State Advisory Committee for Cutting the Red Tape; Member of the Advisory Committee of the MIIT for drafting the Telecommunication Act; Member of the Legal Expert Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transportation; legal Consultant for the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; Member of Advisory Committee of the MOFCOM for E-commerce; Advisor Member of the Legal Advisory Committee for the State General Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine; Advisor Member of the Legal Advisory Committee for the State Food and Drug Administration; Member of Price Expert Advisory Committee jointly established by the SDRC and China Price Association; Member of Editorial Board for het International Data Privacy Law published by Oxford Journals. Professor Zhou was the Leader of the Task Force to drat the Regulations on the Freedom of Information, Personal Information Protection Act, as well as E-government Act, which were entrusted by the State Council Informatization Office respectively. Prof. Zhou has participated in many lawmaking and policymaking process including Administrative License Law, State Liability Law, Energy Law, Food Safety Lw, E-Signature Law, etc. Professor Zhou has obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Wuhan University, and both his Master’s degree and Doctor’s degree were awarded by the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Professor Zhou was the Senior Visiting Scholar at Yale Law School (2000); Visiting Scholar at Norwegian Institute of Human Rights (1998); Attorney at Law of Beijing Jun He Law Offices (1998-98) ; Research Scholar at the University of Michigan Law School (1993-1995). Professor Zhou is also the guest professor and researcher for several other universities in China.