| Can we introduce the judicial independence into our country when it has become a worldwide tidal current? Can it be compatible to our fundamental political institutions, mainly the leadership of the PICC & the institution of People's Representative Congress? Many people have still doubts on this issue. So, it is necessary to clarify it. The judicial independence shares its inevitability of logic by which the political civilization has developed. We can expounded and proved it in two aspects. On the micro level, the judicial method within the judicial system, playing a role of solving disputes, has grown gradually. Initially people realized that only the due process, i.e. the equal parties & the adiaphorous judge, would result in just judgments. For more social justice, people enlarged the scope of the method, which lay only in some civil cases and impeachable criminal cases originally. After states held the prosecuting power, people engaged to create the equal relationship between dependants and the prosecuting services and endowed courts with the metro-state status. That is a long and gradual proceeding. Meanwhile, the state was no longer sacred because kings'power had subsidized, so the governmental services became one party. Then the judicial method was applied to solve those deputes between citizens and governmental services. Since the birth of the judicial review, the judicial method has applied between citizens and the legislatures. This is a deep significative step. The social justice resulting from the judicial method's growth won positive responses from the society, which endowed it stronger vitality in return. On the macro level, beyond the judicial system, i.e. on the political system, the judicial power had adjusted itself frequently during the development of politics and found its station of today. Centralized political power didn't allow the independent judicial power in the absolute-regality times. As far as the nature of political power is concerned, it tends to autarchy. The Greek democracy and the English parliamentary sovereignty are rare examples, not general ones, in the mankind's political civilization. In order to limit the regality, English decompounded their political power, which was concluded as the three-power-departure by Montesquieu. The American nation constructed their political system according to this theory in the advantaged historical space-time. While English wanted to limit the regality, American wanted to limit any kinds of absolute power, whether it was named with "emperor"or with "people". American advanced the station of judicial power unprecedentedly and emphasized the relative independence of the judicial power. Under this kind of regime, civil rights were protected effectively, individuals shared space to develop themselves, the society was full of vigor and the country became strong. The American regime formed a templet, thus the judicial power became a worldwide tidal current. Why judicature can be independent? That is rarely be inquired. In the author's opinion, the judicial power shares sociality. This is the answer. The will-expression and the will-execution can compose the national power self-sufficiently and there is no place for the judicial power. So, the judicial power is different from the national power. On the micro level, the courts and the judges appear as arbiters in the civil cases with one party of state, in the public-prosecution cases, in the administrative litigations and even in the judicial reviews. This status with the supranational characteristic should be regarded as the vicegerent of the society rather than of the state. So, on the macro level, the judicial power appears as a certain of social power. Once the judicial power were viewed as the social power, we can figure out easily why the judicial power should check the national power. Though, it isn't a new discovery. From Tocqueville onward, a pretty part of western political philosophers pursued to check the national power with the society power. Sometimes this idea was like a spurned widow, while sometimes like a favorite beauty.Re-unscrambling the check & balance, we know that the judicial power was almost not checked, which proves the sociality of the judicial power adversely. As a correspondingly new argument, the author demonstrated it concretely in following aspects: the warranty, the subject, the proceeding (including the guarantee), and the aim of the judicial power. The sociality of the judicial power emerged on the background where nation and society separated each other. In the monarchistic times, nation was private and emperor wasn't responsible for his subjects. Even if the political power was practiced in different sorts, it would be unified by the emperor eventually. So, we can't expect that one power check another power. In the demotic times, persons who hold the political power must be responsible for people. Experience told people not to endow hierarch absolute power. So the not-surrendered powers were kept in society, while the surrendered ones formed the national power. The nation and the society separating each other, the society surveillances the nation. The judicial power plays an important role in the social powers for its unique function. Because the anarchy does harm to people, the judicial power won't destroy the basis of reign, and it just balances the national power and the social power. Since the judicial power is warranted by the national power, it is an admixture of the social power and the national power. As a conservative power, the theoretical basis of the judicial power is the empiricism of political philosophy. The judicial independence can be understood better on the political-philosophy background where the idealism and the empiricism have rivaled for a long time. Since the Enlightening Movement, the idealism had prevailed in the political reality. The expansion of idealism promoted the political civilization to develop quickly, but meanwhile, it went into a blind alley now and then, which brought about catastrophes. Then people realized the value of the anglo-american empiricism. In fact, the United Kingdom and America maintained the political stabilization and social advancement without the great cost for radical revolution. The idealism led to absolute state because of the requirement for centralization of political power. The empiricism kept the judicature away from the political power correspondingly and insured its station in the political life. It aimed tolimit the state, as well as to protect the society. So, the empiricism rectified the idealism. We can come to aforesaid conclusion manifestly by review the latter-day political reality of the world. Undoubtedly, Marxism belongs to the idealistic camp. So, a series of problems brought by the realism emerged, even went to extreme, in the new China. Since the Reforming & Opening, we have rectified that across-the-board and attained dazzling achievement firstly in the economic field. The economic development promoted general improvement of society. But in our country, the judicial power is accessorial and weak, while the national power is too strong. The misunderstanding about the judicial independence is also not eliminated across-the-board. However, what we have done and we are doing has weakened the state and strengthened the society. The statement of constructing "easy society"and, specially, of constructing "harmonious society"suggested that the "nation "is no longer the only core word in political life. That has made preparation for the judicial independence. In any case, we can't steer clear of the judicial independence, if we want to construct our institution-civilization. But the judicial independence with china feature must be constructed on the precondition that is the leadership of the PICC & the institution of People's Representative Congress. Hereon the author argued that the three-power-departure isn't the premise for the judicial independence. So the latter can be consistent with our fundamental political institutions.
|
PDF Full Text Request