What influence does the communist party have on the implementation of the rule of law in China?

The communist party has an enormous influence over the implementation of the rule of law in China. In order to achieve the rule of law, there must be an independent judiciary so that the government can be held accountable for their actions. However, where the judiciary is heavily influenced and even appointed by the communist party, this is incredibly hard to achieve. As Professor Jerome Cohen mentioned, the court structure is very weak in China and have very little power, so that even if there is an independent judiciary, it is hard to enforce any kind of judgment at this present time. While the communist party is making enormous progress in the way they govern, they still have the enormous persuasion of the judicial system, which means that the rule of law is not one that can be properly adhered to.

Did any of the information presented by Professor Jerome Cohen shock or surprise you?  If so, what in particular?

A lot of what Professor Jerome Cohen said shocked me. I am embarrassed to admit that apart from what I saw and read during the period leading up to the Olympics last year, I knew very little about the Chinese government. Even before watching the video I was very ignorant about what is really happening. One thing in particular that shocked me was that the police are only accountable to the police. Having the power to detain someone for up to four years without requiring approval by anyone other than the police is a power that deeply disturbed me. Despite our discussions in tutorials in the last couple of weeks about the danger of imposing our beliefs of what is right in government upon other cultures, I was horrified that police in China are given a responsibility that can much too easily be abused. However, I also found it heartening that within the communist party itself, changes such as the implementation of due process for its members are being enforced. I believe that while there is much that can be improved in the Chinese system of government, as with all systems, striving towards fairness within the party itself is a great indication of what can be achieved for the entire legal system.

Have you read anything recently in the media concerning the Chinese Legal System? What are your thoughts on these particular topics after listening to Professor Jerome Cohen’s lecture.

I recently read some articles concerning the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, and various opinions regarding it and the advancements China has made politically. Is it extremely unnerving to realise that there are nations where censorship is still an issue, and as some students have pointed out in their responses, are likely to continue in the future. However, as terrible as it is to think that while we are connected through mediums such as the internet, we are also very much disconnected through government interference in those same mediums, it is heartening to know that from the perspective of the academics who wrote the articles, the same spirit found in the students who protested in Tiananmen Square lives on. Bloggers and protestors are still persevering, and in some instances, succeeding, in their quest for a change in the political system in China.

I don’t want to repeat to much of what has already been said. After watching the lecture by Jerome I, along with what seems as the majority of the class, realised I am quite naïve to the situation plaguing the legal system in China.

I guess in a way I still believe in a world of rainbows and butterflys, rather ridiculous..i know.

Most of what I would want to say has already been said. So I will just make some comments in regards to some of the readings. It has already been mentioned the weaknesses of the Chinese judiciary in regards to corruption and inability to enforce laws that are made. I found it incredibly interesting the comments made by Jerome Cohen in “A multitude of Grievances” where he brought up a number of other issues with the legal system:.
1 – If certain petitioners seek to take local complaints to provincial agencies they are often informally detained in ‘black jails’ and the persistent ones are locked up for much longer periods in mental hospitals or they are prosecuted.

Could you imagine the uproar in our society if we attempted to bring forward a simple complaint and were locked in jail by the police with no warrant. It is a scary concept especially since (although it is not expressly written in the constitution) we do pride ourselves on our speech and rights to confront certain issues whether it is through the courts, police or campaign rallies etc.

2 - the courts also reject many kinds of ‘sensitive’ cases, for example the parents of victims in the Sichuan earthquake and the tainted milk consumers have been thwarted by the courts.

3 – Victims of pollution, AIDS discrimination or unfair deprivation of property rights are often denied relief by judges. This just highlights the weaknesses of the judiciary system; the judges are persuaded by political influence, local protectionism, bribery and cronyism.

4 – It was also interesting to see his note that the small number of public interest lawyers who try to offer legal assistance to controversial plaintiffs are confronted and subjected to harassment, disbarment, prosecution and prison. So I guess it comes down to this, if you attempt to bring forward a case that the communist party does not want in the media spotlight or does not want detested against than you can be thrown in a black prison or harassed or rejected by the courts or you will not find legal aid through the fear that they may be subjected to much worse treatment.

I was surprised to read in the article “Anti-Government Protests Every Day” by Yang Jianli, the extensive measures that the Chinese government has taken in order to eradicate any collective memory of the Tiananmen Square movement. Information on the topic cannot be found in textbooks or on the internet within China.
I would think it is a fundamental human right to be able to form your own opinions. It seems to me that the Chinese government, by blocking out certain information, is attempting to control what people think. According to Jianli the communist party has over 30000 cyber cops employed to censor internet traffic.

In the Lecture Jerome Cohen also mentioned that China made certain promises relating to human rights in order to retain the rights to host the Olympics. It was interesting he say this as my mum went on a trip to China and she mentioned how they had began to demolish apartment buildings which looked lower class. The guide had said that the government had evicted the tenants to knocked down the buildings  as they did not want to risk them being photographed during the Olympic period. They also covered older buildings with huge posters so that they couldn’t be seen. It makes me wonder how many people lost there homes because the government wants a perfect image of China to be broadcasted to the world. I guess that is a perfect example of an infringement on the human rights of the Chinese people.


I think I have began to ramble a little bit so I will wrap it all up with what I thought was a perfect point made by John Kamm in “Open debate, Without Questioning Authority”.
“The Chinese Government’s approach to dissent boils down to this:
As long as you don’t question the unchallenged rule of the Communist party, a wide range of topics can be debated openly”.

That is an interesting thought to ponder! The concepts of 'fairness' and 'due process' that have been adopted within the party have seemed to  reframed approach to resolution of conflict in general. I am optimistic something as drastic as a total reframe of approach to resolving conflict would proliferate, and ultimately extend beyond those within the party in power.

After reading the responses by people I don’t feel that there is much I can add to the first tutorial question. However, there is a lot that shocked me.

I found it quite shocking that with today’s technological advances, including the internet that the situation in China was so well swept under the rug, especially during the Olympics. I think it is shocking how basic human rights and democracy have been swept to the side for the sake of economic advancement. And I wonder at what overall price that will cost them. Are they economically powerful?- yes? Would it necessarily be a good place to live?-questionable.

However, I feel that there is an important point to be made. All legal systems, when initially being created and developing, have had problems. Although all of our legal systems have had problems we may be able to prove the Chinese government with valuable information so that some of the problems are not repeated. Then in time China may be able to prove us with some of their information and advice.


Martha(QUT)

I think China has a long way to go when it comes to upholding the rule of law, but its clear to see the situation of Chinese citizens is improving. While a lot of the content Professor Cohen discussed was shocking (as previously discussed by many of you), above all I was quite surprised at the balanced approach Cohen took. He spoke not only of China’s problems, but also of their successes. He spoke of a corrupt judiciary influenced by an all-controlling government and an overall weak legal system, but also of increasing equality and legal education within the country.

Professor Cohen also mentioned media as a tool for law reform. The internet has managed to expose corrupt actions and cover ups of  the Chinese government by citizens who are game enough to speak out. The 2008 Olympics was not only a sporting showcase but also provided a business and political platform for China to show its human rights improvements to the rest of the world.

Though the Chinese government maintains that  censorship occurs for any material that will potentially disrupt or undermine the social stability goals or national security of the country, I find it hard to believe that social stability can be ensured when Chinese citizens cannot freely look up matters of democracy, human rights, health, education or other sites that outline their fundamental rights and freedoms. Hopefully this will not create further social unrest, further public outcry and another massacre as happened in Tiananmen Square.