Research On The Judicialization Of The CPC Policy

As a constituent part of the socialist political and legal system with Chinese characteristics,the people's court makes judgments and settles "conflicts and disputes",plays a political role as the party's policy implementer,and shoulders the mission and task of judicializing the party's policies.During the whole process of the practical activities of policy judicialization,the people's courts transforms the party's policies into judicial policies by means of judicial interpretations,judicial documents,guiding cases and other carriers,and applies them to all aspects of the judicial trial and results.In recent years,with the increasingly strengthened political nature of the people's court to serve the overall situation,from macroscopic aspects,the Supreme People's Court has actively responded to "rural revitalization," "poverty alleviation," "eco-environmental protection," "building an innovative country",and a series of national strategies proposed by the Party Central Committee,providing judicial services and guarantees for the comprehensive and coordinated development of the economy and society.At the meso level,the local people's courts at all levels implement the judicial policies of the Supreme People's Court,while establishing policy-based judicial documents according to the overall work of the local party committees to serve the economic and social development at the state and local levels.From a micro level,when judges apply laws accurately,they incorporate party policies into judicial trials to achieve the unity of legal effects,social effects,and political effects of the case.However,in facing of a variety of disputes and confusions in judicial practice,how the court implements the party's policies and handle law-policy relationship bewilderment,and how judges introduce policies into judicial judgments are not only essential theoretical issues,but also long-standing concerns for judges in judicial practice."Policy judicialization",not only a legal theory issue,but also a political theory issue,still remains as a “research field to be initially explored".Based on this,from the perspective of theories of law and political science,this paper analyzes the work reportsof the Supreme People's Court,judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People's Court,judicial documents,especially normative judicial documents,judgment documents and guiding cases.By observing and analyzing the trial work in some courts,listening to judges' feelings and experiences through judge interviews,this paper strives to explore the historical experience and lessons of policy judicialization based on first-hand information,to study and judge the realistic conditions of policy judicialization,to scientifically and rationally analyze current problems and difficulties of policy judicialization.On this basis,this paper puts forward an optimized path for policy judicialization.According to Luhmann's social system theory,the party's policies are part of political system,and judicial adjudication of the courts are part of legal system.Policy judicialization is essentially an interaction between the legal system and the political system.From the perspective of China's political and legal system,the Communist Party of China has played a significantly leading and promoting role in the judicialization of policies,and established a “high-level promotion” policy implementation model with Chinese characteristics.During policy judicialization,the Supreme People's Court,as a "policy maker" or "policy transformer",transforms the party's policies into judicial policies in specific manners to guide judicial trials mainly by formulating judicial interpretations,policy-related judicial documents,work-related judicial documents,and guiding cases.Local courts,as the political and legal unit under the leadership of local party committee,are provided with resources from the higher courts as well as the party committees at the same level beyond judicial field.Therefore,local courts realize policy judicialization mainly by implementing the judicial policies of the Supreme People's Court and the policies of local party committees.In this process,judges apply the law accurately.In the meantime,their consideration and application of policies can help to realize the unity of legal effects,political effects and social effects of judicial trials.By summarizing and analyzing the work reports of the Supreme People's Court and the judgment documents of China Judgment Document Network,and listening to judges' feelings and experiences through judge interviews,this paper draws the conclusion: at the macro level,the court's implementation of the party's policies can be manifested by the fact that Supreme People's Court's judicial work is carried on in theoverall work situation of the party and the nation;at the medium level,local courts' implementation of party policies and judicial policies can be embodied in judges' policies;at the micro level,it can be further manifested in the thinking and adjudication behaviors of judges.At present,there exist some problems to be solved in the policy judicialization process for the Supreme People's Court,local courts,and judges at all levels of courts,which not only hinder the scientific and effective transformation of the party's policies into judicial policies,but also affect the quality of judgement and judicial credibility.Specifically,from the perspective of the Supreme People's Court,firstly,some judicial interpretations with the main idea of transforming the party's policies lack a legal basis.In some cases,exaggeratedly extended interpretation is applied to meet policy or political needs;secondly,policy judicialization under a relatively rigid mode sometimes excessively highlights and emphasizes the ideological characteristics of judicial policies,and responds to the party's policies simply,thereby eliminating the inherent characteristics of judicial policies consistent with judicial laws and judicial techniques.For local courts at all levels,firstly,driven by the so-called “view of overall situation”advocated by local party and government organs and even the leaders of the party and government,local courts and judges cannot correctly define the boundary between“serving the overall situation” and “local protectionism”,nor can they balance between the requirements of local governance and the legality of case handling.Secondly,influenced by the deviated organizational standpoint and defective supervision mechanism,the local courts implemented policies with great leap in a magnified and selective way.As for the front-line judges,lacking the idea of rule of law and policy thinking misleads some judges to misunderstand and misuse party policies in judicial adjudication.Specifically,they simply adopt policies in the judgment documents without detailed policy reasoning.On the other hand,they directly cite policy provisions as the basis for judgment,which leads to conflicts between policies and laws,and weakens the legal authority and judicial credibility.To resolve above-mentioned problems in policy judicialization,measures should be taken from three aspects: strengthen the Supreme People's Court's ability to transform policy policies,improve the mechanism of local courts' policy implementation,and enhance judges' policy application skills,thereby improving thestandardization and legalization of policy judicialization for people's court.Specifically,in terms of the Supreme People's Court's policy transformation,firstly,it should strengthen and standardize judicial interpretation,and enhance the legality of judicial interpretation and reflect the modest and restrained principle;secondly,judicial policies should be more targeted and functional,and the Supreme People's Court's ability to response to polices should be improved;finally,it is necessary to strengthen the standardization and authority of guiding cases,so that they can play a unique role in explaining laws and unifying the applicable standards of laws when handling specific cases.In terms of local courts' implementation of policies,poor implementation of policies by local courts should corrected by improving the interest-demand integrated mechanism,policy implementation communication mechanism,monitoring and evaluation mechanism for policy implementation.In terms of judges' adoption of policies,firstly,judges' misunderstanding in policy application should be resolved.On this basis,it is necessary to standardize the way of policies applied in criminal trials.In the meantime,judges should strengthen the reasoning of policies in civil trials,scientifically and effectively apply the party's policies in judicial adjudication,thereby comprehensively improving judicial credibility.