To Farrahqut:

As the earliest bird posting a comments here, you are very much appreciated!

I believe your thoughts are basically correct. You say it seems that China has been excelling in the business arena. However, please take a further step.

First of all, to understand the rule of law in China, you can not separate it from China's success in the business arena. It is a globalised age which is particularly true in the case of business. The pursuit in free market economy contributes significantly to China's success in the field of domestic and international trade and business. Market economy is based on many crucial rules which are globally applicable. These rules include the freedom of contract, protection of private property, fair judicial system, effecitve legislature, etc.. Without the rule of law, it is hardly possible that the operation of market could be successful.

Second, to understand the rule of law in China, you need to consider the traditional notions and practices concerning law and social norms. The ancient Chinese legal system was very influential for over a thousand of years in Asia. However, it is fair to say that there was no sense of "rule of law" at all, but "rule by law" which means the law was use as a means by which the emperors can control and rule their people. Maybe, today, to some extent, the government still consider law as a means of controlling. However, it has been changing. The political civilisation, to me, is at the centre of human being's civilisation and culture, and is always evolving.

Third, I don't think the terms such as "autocracy" and "dictatorship" can be used to describe the political structure in China because these terms are too ideology-oriented. I believe while talking about socialism, communism or capitalism, "coercion" is a key word. While commenting on Kevin Kelly's article The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online (see here:http://www.wired.com/culture/culturerev … ntPage=all), Professor Lessig said "[a]t the core of socialism is coercion (justified or not is a separate question)." (See here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/05/et_t … is_is.html) However, other commentators remind Prof. Lessig that such rules as property law are also coercion.

To me, the question might be the source of the coercion or where the coercion comes. Under the rule of law, coercion should be created through a due process with fair negotiation between citizens. I can see that it has been happening gradually in China because the making of law is getting more and more people involved.

The prevalance of the rule of the law and the evolution of the political civilisation are not solely reliant on a political party but also on the people. Once the spirit of rule of law has taken root in the society, it would not be stoppable by a political party. It is a bit optimistic; however, it is also something that we can believe and pursue.

1.) The communist party has a major influence on the implementation of the rule of law in china. The communist party, is a stronger force and as such , has the power to turn down the rule of law. The rule of law simply put means government under law, but this is not the case for China. The rule of law is conditional in China, aspect which conflict with the communist party's ideals are not implememnted. Basically the commusit party has the final say over the rule of law and implemets it as it sees it fit.

2.) Yes. The information on avaliability of legal resources tot he everyday individual. Genarally the vibe the international community gets from the media would generally lead on to believe that such resources are not avaliable to the general public due to extreme censorship. To a large degree this i believe still holds true, because althoguh the public has access to legal information, expertise and self help guides to representing themselves in court, this does very little as judges have very little power or independence and are influenced in their decision amking along the ideals of the communist party and this leads to inconsistency in legal proceedures.

3.)Yes i recently read an article on the anniversary of Tiananmen square , it talked about Chinese authorities implementing censorship stategies in an attempt to prevent citizens from sharing their viess of the occasion with the international community especially  through internet sites such as facebook and Twitter. Afterr listening to Professor Jerome Cohen's lecture, my thoughts on these issues are, as horrfic as they may already be, the disaapointing aspect is that they are likely to continue for a long time , because of the staunch control and power plus the rigid system of the Communist party. However i believe eventually with upcoming generations, there would be a massive changing in the political system which will afford the Chinese citizens their basic human rights.

Why is the world forcing China into accepting legal system which they don't accept? There are several types of legal system around the world. what if china is inventing new type of legal system? What may be seen as legal sitution may never be a legal issue in china. Laws as the base of legal system is simply a concept or accepted commonsense by the majority at that particular place. Therefore, what others may see as human right might never be accepted as human rights at certain place. For example, Same sex marriage is not human right in most African countries because it is not what the majority accepted as human rights.

So whatever, happened in china should not be fit into one of the recognised legal system, but it should be viewed as a new legal system.

Hi

1. The communist party exerts a major influence on the rule of law in china. The PRC does this via various party policies which tend to limit social justice. What I mean by this is that the PRC engages policies cwhich seperate the Rich and Poor people (tax policies) and also cause environmental problems, health problems, difficulty in accessing social security, education, and property rights. Although the global community is starting to see some progression in the law-making and interpretation in China, there is still a long way to go before the PRC's influence is fully alleviated.

2. Several issues shocked me during Jerome's lecture i) There are many professionals who are now focused on improving legal education and the system ie. approx 150 000 lawyers, approx legal information centres. I thought there would have been way more professionals and institutions considering the size of the populaiton of china ii) Communist Party’s membership is lobbying for change. Has 74 million people – must get support from its own membership first. Fairness incorporated into the party’s rules as when a party member is about to get fired they right to know what charges are & evidence & appeal. I thought this would have been the case as it is common in Australia as we have Industrial Relations Tribunals etc.

3. Olympics – seems China used this event as a way to express to the world its commitment to human rights and law and order. Seems as though it wasnt fully committed like it said it was going to be. Stern Hu – Seems as though China is still hanging onto its past as it is holding him on charges but are being very vague as to the exact criminal process Stern Hu will partake in. Although they have released what he has been charged with, China still hasn’t been forthcoming and/or helpful with information to the rest of the western world. Once again, I think this shows China still has a long way to go in respect of Human Rights.

Whether the voices of individual Chinese people (as is increasingly been seen in on-line blogs and petitions) will affect the power of the Communist Party and the just implementation of legislation and the Constitution.

As was suggested by Jerome Cohen in the video, (and I believe some fellow students have mentioned), litigants in China have been going to court demanding fairness and equal protection from the law. That is they’re looking to have their rights recognised through justice such as equal rights for women in China. It is actions by the Chinese public such as this example, which may be a successful force to impact the legal system in China. The voices of the individuals could result in the introduction of new legislation and so on.

How does the Chinese communist party influence the rule of law?

First, I believe it is necessary to examine what is exactly meant by ‘rule of law.’ As Jerome Cohen mentioned, it essentially means ‘government under law.’  It also means that law and order is desired over anarchy. More concisely, it means the Chinese communist party is not beyond the law. In the video, the administrative treatment of the communist party’s members was referred to. Mr Cohen suggested, if a member is ousted, the party needs to explain why, have evidence, there should be a hearing, a right to appeal and so on. If the Chinese communist party could support its members by demonstrating the above mentioned rights and procedures, the party would have a positive influence on the rule of law in China by setting the standard for the nation as a whole. The rule of law would be implemented through due and fair process within the party.

Furthermore, the fact that the rule of law is praised four days of the week and then for the remainder of the week, the government says not to take it all too seriously, demonstrates the party fails to consistently adhere to the rule of law.  It also illustrates the supremacy of the party to influence the operation of the rule of law.

Moreover, when I think of the rule of law, I automatically think of the need for there to be a separation of power between (1) the legislature (2) the judiciary & (3) the executive. Before watching the video, I was unaware of the extent of China’s judiciary lacking independence. Particularly, I was unaware that the judiciary was such a weak institution in China with so much temptation for corruption existing, the problem in getting witnesses to turn up to proceedings as well as a problem with enforcing judgments. It is this lack of independence that illustrates the lack of separation of powers between the three branches and hence the operation of the rule of law is not effective. Particularly, the judiciary’s lack of power highlights the communist party’s supremacy within the country. If judiciary was independent and hence had more power, then perhaps the rule of law would operate more effectively in practice as the executive would not appear as supreme.

What surprised me when I watched the video:

Although I was previously aware of collective punishment in China, I did not realise it continues to be a problem to the extent it currently is. I also was surprised by how weak the judiciary is. Particularly, the fact that there is such a problem with getting witnesses to court as well problems with enforcing judgments was a surprise. I was also shocked by the discipline and inspection commission’s powers in cases of corruption and so on. I was unaware of its current power to deny the individual from seeing the family. The surprises made me respect the current legal system we have in Australia.