Faquan-in-Motion: Larry Catá Backer’s (白轲) Modernization and the Lebenswelt of Chinese Constitutionalism Read Through Tong Zhiwei's Faquanism 法权运动中：(Larry Catá Backer中文名：白轲) 现代化与中国宪制的生活世界 ——通过童之伟的法权主义加以阅读

 

Pix credit here 

(Ying Yeping (应野平), Wang Huanqing (汪欢清) - An Arduous Journey (1961))

I have been thinking through the fundamental role of modernization in Chinese constitutionalism and its proper cognitive framing of constitutional theory (or at least of a theory of the way in which collectives approach cognitively rational self-constituting) ((1) "Modernization (现代化) as the Lebenswelt of Chinese Constitutionalism" [现代化作为中国宪政的生活世界 ]; (2)  Discussion Draft Posted: "Education as Productive Force and Ideological Apparatus: A Dialectical Analysis of China's Modernization-Driven Knowledge System" [作为生产力与意识形态机制的教育：中国现代化驱动型知识体系的辩证分析] ). 

I have also been engaging in the quite exciting and insightful project of Tong Zhiwei (童之伟) and his elaboration of a theory of fundamental jurisprudence. In the form of his Right, Power, and Faquanism: A Practical Legal Theory from Contemporary China (Boston, Brill, 2018) Tong develops  what may emerge as a new general theory of law. I wanted to start to consider the relation between the way that Tong and I saw the world and its theoretical framing. The product of that exploration, at least the first of what may become a fruitful dialogue, is an essay entitled Faquan-in-Motion: Larry Catá Backer’s (白轲) Modernization and the Lebenswelt of Chinese Constitutionalism Read Through Tong Zhiwei's Faquanism [法权运动中：(Larry Catá Backer中文名：白轲) 现代化与中国宪制的生活世界——通过童之伟的法权主义加以阅读], which follows: 

 

Abstract / Summary — For Policymakers and General Audiences

How does China's legal system actually work on its own terms—and what theories do Chinese scholars themselves use to explain it? This essay brings two independent Chinese intellectual projects into conversation for the first time. The first is Tong Zhiwei's "Faquonism," a comprehensive theory that treats the total field of social interests and property (quan) as the raw material from which law carves recognized rights (for individuals) and powers (for the state), leaving the remainder unsettled. The second is Larry Catá Backer's (白轲) phenomenological-semiotic account of Chinese constitutionalism, which treats "modernization" not as a policy slogan but as the cognitive horizon—the deep, historically layered framework—within which Chinese constitutional language acquires its meaning, periodically recalibrated by the Communist Party's diagnosis of the nation's "principal contradiction."

Reading these two frameworks against each other yields a striking finding: each can, to a significant extent, be restated in the vocabulary of the other. Modernization, translated into Faquonism’s terms, names two things at once: the long historical process by which unsettled interests become legally recognized rights and powers, and the external criterion that periodically fixes what ratio between them counts as appropriate. Conversely, Faquonism’s core category—faquon—functions within legal theory in much the same way that modernization functions one level higher in constitutional discourse: as a master-organizing term (a “metasignifier”) that gives all the surrounding concepts their relational meaning. The two projects share structural common ground: both treat law as historically indexed rather than timelessly fixed; both locate the authority to recalibrate legal meaning in the Party’s periodic diagnosis of national conditions; and both imply that the absorption of popular claims into settled legal form proceeds through structured consultation rather than adversarial litigation.

This mutual translatability reveals a further practical insight: Tong’s own methodology already ties the essence of law to whatever China’s current stage of modernization requires. His theory is not timeless philosophy; it is explicitly calibrated to the Party-state’s developmental agenda. This means that shifts in China’s legal order—between more individual rights and more state power—are best understood as responses to changing official assessments of national development, processed through the consultative machinery of Whole-Process People’s Democracy rather than through courts adjudicating individual rights claims.

Important divergences remain. Faquonism’s conception of justice is distributive—each person receiving exactly the legal share due—yet the Chinese constitutional order actually legitimates itself not through fair allocation but through developmental and civilizational achievement: the Party’s claimed capacity to lead modernization. Both theories also rely on the image of a rationally self-transparent vanguard that surveys and directs the entire system from a position of comprehensive knowledge—an image that none of the available mediating idioms (systems theory, biopolitics, indigenous Chinese rhetoric) can fully accommodate without denying something both Chinese source texts insist upon. The essay identifies these and other unresolved tensions—including Faquonism’s lack of a category for Party-internal normativity—not as theoretical failures but as indicators of what remains genuinely open in our understanding of China’s constitutional order, and where future institutional and conceptual evolution may prove consequential.

摘要——面向政策制定者与普通读者

中国的法律体制究竟按照何种内在逻辑运行？中国学者自身又以何种理论加以解释？本文首次使两个彼此独立的中国理论项目展开对话。第一个是童之伟的"法权主义"：一套完整理论，将社会利益与财产的总体场域（"权"）视为法律从中划定权利（面向个人）与权力（面向国家）的原材料，其余部分则保留为未决状态。第二个是Larry Catá Backer（白轲）对中国宪制的现象学—符号学论述，该论述将“现代化”不是视为政策口号，而是理解为中国宪制语言借以获得意义的认知视域——一个深层的、历史层累而成的框架——由共产党对“主要矛盾”的诊断周期性地加以重新校准。

将两个框架相互对照，可得出一项引人注目的发现：二者在相当程度上可以用对方的词汇加以重述。现代化经由法权主义的术语进行转译，同时命名了两件事情：未决利益被吸收为法律上已确定的权利与权力的长时段历史过程，以及周期性地确定二者之间何种比率被视为“适当”的外部标准。反之，法权主义的核心范畴——“法权”——在法学理论内部发挥的功能，与现代化在更高一层宪制话语中所发挥的功能具有结构同源性：二者均作为赋予周围概念以关系性意义的主组织术语（“元能指”）而运作。两个项目共享结构性的共同基础：二者均将法律视为具有历史索引性而非永恒固定的；二者均将重新校准法律意义的权威定位于党对国情的周期性诊断；二者均暗示民众诉求向已决法律形式的吸收，是通过结构化协商而非对抗式诉讼加以实现的。

这种相互可转译性揭示了一项进一步的实践洞见：童之伟自身的方法论已明确将法的本质与中国当前现代化阶段的要求相联结。其理论并非超越时空的哲学抽象，而是被明确校准于党—国家的发展议程。这意味着，中国法律秩序在个人权利与国家权力之间的消长，最适宜被理解为对国家发展阶段官方诊断变化的回应，其制度路径是全过程人民民主的协商机制，而非法院对个人权利主张的裁判。 重要的分歧依然存在。法权主义的正义观是分配性的——每个人恰好获得其应得的法律份额——然而中国宪制秩序实际上并非通过公平分配来自我正当化，而是通过发展性与文明性的成就：即党声称能够领导现代化的能力。与此同时，两种理论都依赖一个具有理性自我透明性的先锋队形象，该先锋队从全面知情的位置审视并指导整个体系——而现有的任何中介性话语（系统理论、生命政治、中国本土修辞策略）都无法在不否定两个中国源文本所坚持的某些内容的前提下完全容纳这一形象。本文将这些及其他未解张力——包括法权主义缺乏对党的内部规范性的范畴性语汇——不视为理论缺陷，而视为我们对中国宪制秩序的理解中仍然真正开放之处的指标，也是未来制度与概念演进可能具有实质后果的领域。

The text of the draft essay follows below and may be accessed  ENGLISH  /  中文版本 HERE

 

童之伟 我之法学思想观点重述 [Tong Zhiwei, A Restatement of My Jurisprudential Thoughts and Views]

It is with great pleasure, and at the request of its author, my friend and colleague Tong Zhiwei, that I pass along a exquisitely intense, profound, transformative, and thought provoking development of a general theory of law, his jurisprudence of Faquanism (Faquanzhuyi). It is entitled 童之伟 我之法学思想观点重述 [Tong Zhiwei, A Restatement of My Jurisprudential Thoughts and Views] and appears in the original Chinese and Professor Tong's English translation.

最近与某机构有约，由我自己出面，从法的一般理论角度，概括一下自己的法学思想观点。我觉得这很有意思，值得花时间做一做。我在法学上的一些想法，很肤浅、不成熟，大部分反映在最近十年出版的几本书中（十年来出版的书目，附后），少部分曾通过学术讲座的形式呈现。在本文中，权体量和结构公理、义务体量和结构公理是2023前后我在武大法学院秦前红教授主持的学术讲座上提出和阐释的，权结构平衡、法权结构平衡2023年5月在香港中文大学法学院习超教授主持的学术讲座上有较集中论述，而关于国际法的七个观点都是2026年5月下旬我在四川大学国际关系学院李昊教授主持的学术报告会上提出和阐释的。现将我的法学思想观点简单重述如下：

I recently made an arrangement with an institution that I would myself, from the perspective of the general theory of law, summarize my own thoughts and views on jurisprudence. I find this very interesting and well worth the time. My ideas on jurisprudence, which are rather superficial and immature, are mostly reflected in the several books I have published over the past decade (a list of these books is appended); a smaller part has been presented in the form of academic lectures. Of the views restated in this essay, the axiom of the volume and structure of quan and the axiom of the volume and structure of duties were proposed and expounded around 2023 in an academic lecture at Wuhan University School of Law chaired by Professor Qin Qianhong; the balance of the quan structure and the balance of the faquan structure were discussed in a relatively concentrated manner in May 2023 in an academic lecture at the Faculty of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong chaired by Professor Xi Chao; and the seven propositions concerning international law were all proposed and expounded in late May 2026 at an academic lecture at the School of International Studies, Sichuan University, chaired by Professor Li Hao. I now briefly restate my jurisprudential thoughts and views as follows:

In this restatement, Professor Tong synthesizes and restates his jurisprudence of Faquanism (Faquanzhuyi), offering a materialist alternative to imported legal paradigms. Utilizing Marx’s method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, Tong posits quan (权)—the manifestation of all interests and property in social norms—as the foundational analytical starting point. Dialectically, quan yields a cluster of seven essential categories: quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, powers, duties, and law.

Faquan represents property with settled ownership recognized in positive law, resolving into individual rights and public powers. Conversely, residual quan represents extra-legal norms governing unsettled property. Duties reflect the negative-value counterpart of these positive holdings. Under Tong’s structural axioms, the volume of quan directly depends on total property, while the proportional share of rights versus powers within faquan is determined by the ratio of private to public property. The core function of law is to optimize the allocation of quan and faquan, preserving equilibrium across zero-sum dynamics (faquan vs. residual quan; rights vs. powers) to avoid both state despotism and social anarchy.

Tong critiques contemporary Chinese jurisprudence for relying on "Japanized" translations (和化“权利”) that conflate rights and powers under a single term, urging Chinese scholarship to embrace native, precise terminology. Finally, Tong extends faquanism to international law: state entities hold international rights based on national wealth, whereas international organs exercise international power through autonomous budgetary enforcement. He concludes that current global insecurity stems from severe disparities in state rights and an underdevelopment of institutional international power.

 

generated with Grok

I will have more to say about this in future posts. For the moment it may be worthwhile to lay out simply the fundamentals of what I have, as of this moment, captured from this highly nuanced and sophisticated project:

Tong Zhiwei’s legal theory, known as Faquanism (Faquanzhuyi / 法权主义), replaces traditional legal binaries (such as the right-duty framework) with a unified, materialist framework constructed around interest, property, power, and rights. Tong targets a specific historiographical defect in Chinese legal scholarship: the continued reliance on the "Japanized" concept of quanli (和化“权利”), introduced during the late Qing and Republican periods via scholars like Hozumi Nobushige and Hozumi Shigeto. This imported usage conflates "rights + powers" under a single term (quanli). Tong argues that this conflation has deeply distorted Chinese jurisprudence, has been abandoned in Japanese legal scholarship, and must be eliminated in favor of normative Chinese terminology that strictly distinguishes Rights (quanli / 权利), Powers (quanli / 权力), and their overarching synthesis, Faquan (faquan / 法权).

Adopting Marx’s method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, Tong selects Quan (权) as the initial, most abstract analytical starting point for jurisprudence. Quan is defined as "the manifestation of all interests and property in social norms of every kind." From it seven basic categories may be organized/recognized, the interactions of which, through the dialectical movement of quan, produce a phenomenological aspect as the general theory. These consist of a cluster of seven essential concepts that exhaustively analyze legal phenomena: (1) Quan (权); (2) Faquan (法权); (3) Residual quan (剩余权); (4) 
Rights (权利); (5) Powers (权力); (6) Duties (义务 / 法义务); and (7) Law (法 / 法律).

Ontologically, Quan encompasses all positive manifestations of interest and property across both legal and extra-legal social norms. It sits above faquan and residual quan as their total sum, defining the outer boundary of the jurisprudential system. Simultaneously, Quan resides immanently within the dialectical tension between its two primary operational components: (1) Faquan (法权): The legal manifestation of property whose ownership is settled (guishu yiding / 归属已定); and (2) Residual quan (剩余权): The extra-legal manifestation of property whose ownership remains unsettled (guishu weiding / 归属未定).

When Quan enters positive law, it becomes Faquan, which serves as the core operational entity of the legal system. Faquan further decomposes into Rights (held by individuals based on individual property) and Powers (held by public authorities based on public property). Under this property-determinist baseline, the total volume of rights is dictated by individual property, while the total volume of powers is dictated by public property—with even non-material interests (such as personality rights) ultimately underpinned by real property rights (wuquan / 物权). Correspondingly, Duties constitute the negative side (negative-value property) attached to these categories.

Because economic processes (production, exchange, and consumption) continuously alter the underlying distribution of property, faquan and residual quan exist in a zero-sum, dynamic ratio (Faquan Rate + Residual quan Rate = 100%). The dynamic absorption and realignment of residual quan into faquan serves as the primary engine of legal evolution. Ultimately, law acts as both organizer and mediator: optimizing the allocation of quan and faquan to ensure structural balance, prevent both anarchy and despotic power, and maximize the preservation and growth of faquan.

As a first order general understanding, then, one might say that under Tong's model, the primary function of law is to act as both organizer and mediator, maintaining a dynamic balance between private rights and public power.

Here is my own first effort at organizing some of the key concepts likely subject to revision

Category	Textual Definition & Material Base	Structural & Practical Function
Quan (权)	Abstract starting point; manifestation of all interests and property in social norms.	The overarching totality (Faquan + Residual Quan).
Faquan (法权)	Manifestation in law of property whose ownership is settled.	Core legal phenomenon; rights-powers community; center of the legal system.
Residual Quan (剩余权)	Manifestation in social norms outside law of property whose ownership is unsettled.	Extra-legal reservoir; fundamental object of legal regulation when interacting with faquan.
Rights (权利)	Legal form of individual interests and individual property.	Individual portion of faquan.
Powers (权力)	Legal form of public interests and public authority property.	Public/state portion of faquan.
Duties (义务)	Reverse side of quan/faquan; negative interests and negative-value property.	Corresponding burden attached to rights, powers, and residual forms[cite: 3].
Structural Balance	Ratios of Faquan Rate / Residual Quan Rate and Rights Rate / Powers Rate[cite: 3].	Ideal law-based state avoids anarchy (excess rights) and despotism (excess powers)[cite: 3].
Internationalization	Transformation of domestic faquan to international entities (states/orgs)[cite: 3].	Analyzes global order via international natural rights vs. institutional powers[cite: 3].

It is interesting to situate Professor Tong's general theory against the Institutes of Justinian for the light they may begin to shed on both. Faquanism and the Insitutes might be said to diverge fundamentally in their analytical methods, reflecting their distinct historical and philosophical foundations. The Institutes, written as an introductory textbook for Roman legal education, employs an inductive, categorization-driven process. It opens with pragmatic definitions of justice and jurisprudence before dividing the entirety of private law into three practical axes: persons (personae), things (res), and actions (actiones). In contrast, Tong explicitly adopts Karl Marx’s dialectical method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Through the internal dialectical movement of quan, Tong derives a cluster of seven interdependent categories (quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, powers, duties, and law) that systematically unfold to explain the entire world of legal phenomena.

 While both systems recognize property as a cornerstone of legal order, they conceptualize the source and function of legal norms differently. In the Justinianic framework, norms derive their legitimacy from a dual tier of natural law (ius naturale / ius gentium) and civil law (ius civile). Property rights in Roman law are classified by their mode of acquisition (natural vs. civil) and physical nature, operating alongside civil status to define legal capability. Tong’s Faquanism, by contrast, establishes a strict materialist property-determinism. Legal norms do not derive from abstract moral principles or natural law; rather, faquan (and positive law itself) is an explicit product of economic processes. The volume of individual property dictates the total volume of individual rights, while the volume of public property dictates public power. Even non-material norms and personal protections (such as personality rights) are ultimately underpinned by real property rights (wuquan). Where Justinian views property as an object governed by law, Tong views property dynamic processes (production, exchange, consumption) as the foundational engine that generates and shifts legal norms.

There is much more by way of theoretic richness in Professor Tong's work. But there is nothing more enlightening than the original. It follows below and may be accessed online HERE.

童之伟：法学基本研究对象与核心范畴再思考——基于宪法视角的研究 [Tong Zhiwei: Rethinking the Basic Research Objects and Core Categories of Law——Research From a Constitutional perspective]

 

 Tong Zhiwei [童之伟] is today one of the most distinguished scholars of Chinese constitutional law. Based for many years at East China University of Political Science and Law, he has taught in a number of universities and has been prominent, as well as courageous, in his scholarship and engagement with his political community, and with colleagues worldwide.  Over the course of the years I have translated and shared many of his short essays posted online (see here).

Professor Tong has recently produced a quite interesting and important essay,   法学基本研究对象与核心范畴再思考——基于宪法视角的研究 [Tong Zhiwei: Rethinking the Basic Research Objects and Core Categories of Law——Research From a Constitutional perspective], which appeared online in Aisiaxiang  on 26 September 2022. The abstract nicely frames its object--the application of principles of socialist modernization to the reinvigoration of the framework within which Chinese constitutional jurisprudence might be better aligned with the times and the realities of this "New Era" :

[内容摘要]现代汉语法学的核心话语形成于20世纪前期，一百多年来并无明显变化。基本研究对象、核心范畴设定与当代中国法律实践错位，是当今法学基础性研究要解决的首要课题。汉语法学应以权为基本研究对象，采用绝对方法形成以法权为核心的基本范畴体系。汉语法学基础理论应通过重置核心话语来获取现代性、本土性和对当代法律实践的适应性。[[Abstract] The core discourse of modern Chinese jurisprudence was formed in the early 20th century, and has not changed significantly for more than a hundred years. The dislocation between basic research objects, core category setting and contemporary Chinese legal practice is the primary topic to be solved in today's basic legal research. Chinese jurisprudence should take rights as the basic research object, and adopt absolute methods to form a basic category system with legal rights as the core. The basic theory of Chinese jurisprudence should acquire modernity, locality and adaptability to contemporary legal practice by resetting the core discourse.]

This rethinking about the way one rationalizes Chinese jurisprudence (in a sense a rationalization of the structures for rationalizing specific fields of knowledge) provides a refreshingly new way to approach the now sometimes ritualized discourse of rights, duties, power, and the like that has had academics and others running around in circles for a century or so. To be sure the performance of circle running has been quite useful for managing orthodoxy, and  preserving, perhaps even moving the field in some direction or other. Yet, as Tong suggests in the case of China it is one that has grown increasingly detached from the reality about which it ostensibly claims a relation.  At the same time, there is much here that suggests that the easy stance of current popular critical movements  (of the so-called left or right camps) in their own discursive circle running around the critique of liberal rights, might neither be as useful or relevant as it might appear. The missing link, though, is ideology, and it comes at no surprise that ideology is itself an instrument of orthodoxy and the demonization of heresy. The discussion of legal transplantation is particularly useful in two respects, The first touches on the effects of transplantation of transplants (in this case the already digested receipt of European jurisprudence filtered through its development in Japan). The second, in the more abstract transplantation of grounding ideology--especially in the discourse that marks the porous borderlands between Marxist-Leninist and liberal democratic  transplants onto Chinese jurisprudence. Lastly, the consideration of a three part basic jurisprudential typology--(1) traditional rights; (2) power and jurisdiction; and (3) residual rights (positive and negative)--provides a rich basis for considering the possibilities of jurisprudential development in China.   

It is my great pleasure, with Professor Tong's assent, to post both the original and a crude English translation. In that context I note that a critical term used through out the text  “权力” , and translated as power, might well be understood in a more subtle and complex sense as incorporating a cluster of related terms in English--including authority, jurisdiction, commission, as well as the extent or scope of each. 

 

"China: Challenges and Opportunities A Conversation with Penn State and East China University of Political Science and Law Faculty" 中国：挑战与机遇 宾州州立大学与华东政法大学学者对话

I am delighted to announce a public engagement:  China: Challenges and Opportunities: A Conversation with Penn State and East China University of Political Science and Law Faculty (中国：挑战与机遇:  宾州州立大学与华东政法大学学者对话). 

It is scheduled for  28 September 2018, Penn State University, School of  International Affairs, Room 232, from  10:00 A.M. – Noon (2018年9月28日 上午10点到12点  宾州州立大学国际事务学院 Katz Building Room 232).

Please join our discussion by emailing Miaoqiang Dai at mxd600@psu.edu for any questions or comments before, during or after the event. 欢迎各位在活动前、收看直播时或活动后以邮件的形式将您的问题、评论或感悟发送给戴苗强（mxd600@psu.edu），我们会帮您向学者提问并及时反馈。We hope to record some parts of the event. 我们希望能记录事件的某些部分

The Concept Note can be read below (概念文件 可以在下面阅读 ).

        

Tong Zhiwei; Concluding remarks at the joint seminar of the Chinese Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law Society [在中国宪法学和刑诉法学会联合研讨会上的总结发言], Entitled 在民主法治的基础上修改好监察法草案 [On the basis of democratic rule of law, amend the draft law on supervision]

I am delighted to be able to post here the text of Professor Tong Zhiwei's Concluding remarks at the joint seminar of the Chinese Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law Society [在中国宪法学和刑诉法学会联合研讨会上的总结发言] which were delivered 15 November 2017.

Entitled 在民主法治的基础上修改好监察法草案 [On the basis of democratic rule of law, amend the draft law on supervision], the remarks provide a summary of the points of concurrence by the leading Chinese academics in the constitutional and criminal law fields respecting the drat Supervision Law now being considered by Chinese officials. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in constitutional law, criminal law and developments of the law of China.

The text of the remarks in the original 中国语言follow along with a crude English translation (which will be cleaned up in the next few days).

Zhiwei Tong: "Monitor the Nine Constitutional Issues that Legislation Should Handle Well" [童之伟 监察立法应处理好的九个宪法问题]- Keynote speech at joint seminar of China Constitutional Law Society and Criminal Procedure Law Society [在中国宪法学会和刑诉法学会联合研讨会上的专题发言] 14 Nov. 2017

It is my great honor to post the following keynote address given by Zhiwei Tong, Vice president of China Constitutional Law Society and on the faculty of the East China University of Political Science and Law China Construction Research Center. The address, Monitor the Nine Constitutional Issues that Legislation Should Handle Well [监察立法应处理好的九个宪法问题 ], was given at joint seminar of China Constitutional Law Society and Criminal Procedure Law Society on 14 November 2017.

This address presents Professor Tong's most recent thoughts on the draft State Supervision law that appears to be one of the most important legal and political innovations in Chinese law and political philosophy in recent times. Professor Tong recently published an excellent essay on China's State Supervision Law draft legislation. That essay, "国家监察立法预案仍须着力完善 The State Supervision Law Legislation Need Further Improvement," was published by Zhengzhi yu falv 《政治与法律》 [Politics and Law] Vol 10, 2017, the English version of which I published HERE.  The English translation of the Draft Supervision Law (courtesy of China Law Translate) can be accessed HERE; 中国语言 version HERE.

The address Monitor the Nine Constitutional Issues that Legislation Should Handle Well [监察立法应处理好的九个宪法问题] appears in the original 中国语言 with a crude English translation following below (a more refined version to follow in a few days).   

Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) remains one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law.

Zhiwei Tong: On "The State Supervision Law Legislation Need Further Improvement" 国家监察立法预案仍须着力完善 English Translation and Original Chinese Version

Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) remains one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. The Series continues.

Professor Tong recently published an excellent essay on China's State Supervision Law draft legislation. That essay, "国家监察立法预案仍须着力完善 The State Supervision Law Legislation Need Further Improvement," was published by Zhengzhi yu falv 《政治与法律》 [Politics and Law] Vol 10, 2017. The essay examines the thrust of the reform legislation and offers a roadmap for improvement. That road map itself provides a masterful analysis of the evolving and dynamic state of Chinese constitutional thought. A more concise version of the article was originally published on line in Chinese. The English translation of the Draft Supervision Law (courtesy of China Law Translate) can be accessed HERE; 中国语言 version HERE.

Professor Tong has given me his permission to publish an English translation of that essay, more accessible to Western audiences. It appears below along with the original Chinese language version. My thanks to Dr. GAO Shan for his excellent translation.

TONG Zhiwei on "Rule of the State in Accordance with the Constitution"--Presentation Summary in English and Chinese (人大制度在依宪治国进程中的地位（提纲） 童之伟 )

(Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) remains one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. The Series continues.

Professor Tong recently presented his developing ideas about the nature of the constitutional ordering of the state apparatus in China in a presentation at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Shanghai Law Society. Set out below is a summary of his presentation in English and Chinese. My thanks to my SJD student GAO Shan for his translation. The ideas are quite innovative and worth careful study for those interested in comparative constitutional law and those who are students of Chinese law and politics.

Part XXXII (32) Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: "Fundamental Understanding must be Installed for Full and Effective Implementation of the Constitution"

(Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society. The Series continues.

The Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues. Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest. I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use. I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao, Bo Wang, and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.


TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE. For this contribution to the Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series /(Part XXXI) we translate (via Shan Gao):

Fundamental Understanding must be Installed for Full and Effective Implementation of the Constitution   (March 4, 2015).

ORIGINAL CHINESE VERSION HERE [全面有效实施宪法须确立的基本认知]

Posted Video Recording of Conference "China-Constitution-Politics"

Pennsylvania State University recently hosted the conference, "China-Constitution-Politics" April 9, 2014. The Conference focused on issues of Chinese constitutionalism and politics (e.g., Conference Announcement: "China-Constitution-Politics" to be Held at Pennsylvania State University April 9, 2014;Considering Zhiwei Tong's Essay, "Two Issues on Constitutional Government in China").





The Conference was recorded. Links to the video recording follow. The recording can be accessed in one of three ways. One is of the entire conference proceedings. The second is of the morning session; the third is of the afternoon session. For ease fo reference, the COnference announcement and Conference Program are also provided.

Part XXXI (31) Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: "Totalitarian Personality and Bo Xilai's Poliitcal Failure"

 (Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society. The Series continues.

The Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues. Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest. I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use. I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao, Bo Wang, and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE.

For this contribution to the Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series /(Part XXXI) we translate (via Bo Wang):
--Totalitarian Personality and Bo Xilai's Political Failure  (Aug. 24, 2013).

 

Part XXX (30) Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: "The Punishment Decision Should Be Made Based on Criminal Facts and Law Regulations--My Thoughts On the Written Judgment of Bo Xilai’s First Instance"

 (Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society. The Series continues.

The Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues. Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest. I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use. I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao, Bo Wang, and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE.

For this contribution to the Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series /(Part XXX) we translate (via Bo Wang):
-->The Punishment Decision Should Be Made Based on Criminal Facts and Law Regulations--My Thoughts On the Written Judgment of Bo Xilai’s First Instance (Sept. 22, 2013).

Part XXIX—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: Five Theoretical Issues Should Be Addressed to Restart Political Reforms

 (Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society. The Series continues.

The Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues. Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest. I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use. I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao, Bo Wang, and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE.

For this contribution to the Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series /(Part XXIX) we translate: Five Theoretical Issues Should Be Addressed to Restart Political Reforms

Part XXVIII—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: How to Restrict Power in the Cage of Regulations

 (Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China.   Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010.  See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010.  Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law.  He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society.

The  Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues.  Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest.  I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use.  I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE.

Part XXVIII—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: How to restrict power in the cage of regulations

Part XXVII—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: Reform of the Political System Should Start with the Party Constitution rather than the Constitution

 (Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)

For 2012, this site introduces the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China.   Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010.  See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010.  Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law.  He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society.

The  Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues.  Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest.  I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use.  I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE.

  

 (Emblem of the Communist Party of China )

Part XXVII—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series:  Reform of the Political System Should Start with the Party Constitution rather than the Constitution