Why Enforcement Cannot Depend On Entrustment

Law circles hold that entrusting enforcement is a magical weapon to solve difficulties happened in enforcement, and propose to replace enforcement in other jurisdiction through strengthening and popularizing entrusting enforcement. The People's Supreme Court has taken a series of measures to carry out entrusting enforcement. However, in judicial practices, the effect of entrusting enforcement is quite unsatisfying and the proportion of successful enforcement is very low. Entrusting enforcement, which has been deserted by jurisprudents and the People's Supreme Court theoretically, still is used as the main method of enforcement.As for the breakaway between the theory and the practice, this dissertation uses the cases related to the entrusting enforcement and enforcement in other jurisdiction as the incisiveness. Then the paper analyzes and points out that entrusting enforcement is ineffective due to the commensalisms among the entrusted court and the local party and the government; among the local party and the local government and the executee; between the entrusted court and the executee. The applicants of enforcement and the courts give up entrusting enforcement and choose the enforcement in other jurisdiction for the latter can break the regional protectionism and acquaintance's social factors and can overcome these obstacles.But taking the politics, the administration, the judicature and the social credit system in our country into consideration, which are difficult to be changed in a shorttime, the inefficiency of entrusting enforcement will exist for a long period. Under these "restraining conditions", enforcement in other jurisdiction cannot be abandoned in the near future.If the institution of the government and the party, and the judicature mechanism cannot be changed effectively, if the supervisory system of social credit cannot be set up, the entrusted court will be not willing or not able to find out the property to be executed. If enforcement in other jurisdiction is abolished, which can overcome enforcing difficulties, the applicant will take desperate actions because he/she has no other methods to resort to. Even if this kind of situation can be avoided, an awkward situation will appear, which encourages entrusting enforcement in theory on the one hand, and encourages executing enforcement in other jurisdiction in practice on the other hand. It ruins the reputation of courts and judicial reforms. Therefore, under the existing restraining judicial circumstances, enforcement in other jurisdiction cannot be avoided. And it is a feasible choice.The existing reforms on entrusting enforcement must be furthered. Enforcement depending on entrustment will be fulfilled in the future if the restraining judicial conditions in our country are taken into account. The aim of the further reform on entrusting enforcement is to abandon the impractical expectations on it. It should be only regarded as a kind of ideal system playing a guiding role. It is early to abolish enforcement in other jurisdiction or to treat it with indifference. Enforcement in other jurisdiction can be justified and should be used as long as the restraining conditions have not been changed. The jurisprudents should rethink the departure of methodology from the judicial practice.On the basis of comparative analyses on the efficiency of finding out the property to be executed between entrusting enforcement and enforcement in other jurisdiction, this paper proposes ways to alter entrusting enforcement in the near future, and to recognize enforcement in other jurisdiction. It also offers some suggestions on how to construct it according to the rule by law.As a matter of fact, this paper agrees that enforcement in other jurisdiction shouldbe abrogated to be compatible with international standards when the judicial environment and legal construction in China are improved.