On The Original Meaning And Introspection Of Active Justice In China

Since the generalization and promotion of active justice as one of themost important Chinese socialism justice concepts in2009,there hasbeen ambiguous cognition and denoting distortion between active justicein the Chinese context and judicial activism in the western context,andthis results in partial and confusing discussions and practice of relatedtheories. These two concepts have some relations and parts of themoverlap, but essentially they are quite distinct from each other in basicconnotation and core value aim. As the analytic philosophy points out,the relation they have in word using has family resemblancescharacteristics,and that is to say, same in form but different in nature,or it can be said that they have similarity but no exact intercommunity.Actually,active justice is part of typical politics-justice ideology which isserving the overall interests of our country while judicial activism isjudicial philosophy with distinct American characteristics rooted in Anglo-American Legal System. Objectively speaking,they two don'thave any direct correlations and regarding them as similar or congenericconcept results from reverse analogical interpretation thinking tendency.In the course of the transformation of pursuing rule of law inChina's judicial field,active justice is come up with autonomously andcarried out uniformly as judicial concept and related practice. Its coreimplication is that judicial power should make use of all the legalresources proactively,positively,and fully,utilize all kinds of feasiblejudicial means to pursue the unification of multiple effects in law,society, politics, economy and so on, and develop judicial efficiencyto the hilt. Among these there are active considerations andforward-looking behaviors when justice faces the risk society andrationality of the responses to social change and the people demands oftrial mode adjustment. But,there also exists great danger of destructingpublic trust when justice is inappropriately active,excessively caters forpolitical needs and non-institutional public opinions,or even dissimilatesfrom neutral judge to contradiction maker. The necessary closure of legalsystem,that is,external factors can be lawful reasons for decisionsentering legal system only if they pass through legitimate filters. And thisis the basis of the autonomy of legal system,and also the precondition ofhow justice can really be active but not be forced to be active, disorderlyactive or blindly active. We are supposed to correctly understand the commitments of activejustice such as serving the overall situation,enforcing justice for people,pursuing the unification of multiple effects and so on. Firstly, justiceserves the overall political situation, so it must keep relativeindependence and cannot go beyond the role of neutral judge. Only ifjustice adheres to valid service and regulation,can the underlyingpolitical legitimacy crisis or the massive non-standard and disorderlysociety be avoided. In the second place,justice respects the public willmainly in the sense that the law containing institutional public will isabode by. Only under very special circumstance,non-institutional publicwill is considered. The reasonable target effect is supposed to convincethe people but not satisfy the people. In the next place,the justice shouldpursue the multiple effects of comprehensive acceptability on the basis oflegal efficiency. Verdicts of judicial activities such as the judgment shouldmake equity and justice—the primary value the chief criterion. With theprerequisite of ensuring judicial justice and legality,the ideal politics,economy, and morality etc. can be pursued as far as possible.