Criminal Law Judicial Interpretations Have Retroactive Effect

Retrievalbility　of　judicial　explanation　of　criminal　law　is　always　in　a　controversy　in　theory　and　practice　in　our　country.　It　is　because　judicial　explanation　might　be　a　system　full　of　Chinese　characteristics　in　the　legal　system　in　our　country.　The　appellation　of　judicial　explanation　does　not　exist　in　civil　law　or　in　common　law.　If　you　must　trace　it,　it　represents　supreme　judicial　organ　(or　judge)'s　interpretation　of　application.　In　which　case,　there's　no　so-called　retrievalbility　of　judicial　explanation　at　all.　It　has　inevitable　effects　in　application　upon　the　cases　which　it　interprets.　But　in　the　current　legal　system　in　China　judicial　explanation　is　the　general　stipulation　that　possesses　the　universal　force　made　by　supreme　court　and　supreme　procuratorate.　It　embodies　standardized　interpretations　and　becomes　the　chief　basis　that　the　judges　would　follow　while　they　are　hearing　lawsuits.　The　question　of　the　retrievalbility　of　judicial　explanation　is　resulted　in　the　unique　character　remained　in　our　country's　judicial　explanation.　Also　for　that　reason,　the　question　of　the　retrievalbility　of　criminal　law's　judicial　explanation　appeared.　What　makes　this　problem　more　complex　is　that　the　judicial　explanation　is　not　the　law　itself,　so　the　principle　of　"the　law　have　no　tracing-back　force"　couldn't　be　adopted.　Therefore,　contradictions　show　up　both　in　theory　and　in　practice.　　　　The　first　part　in　this　paper　introduces　the　main　opinions　in　the　academic　circles　about　retrievalbility　of　judicial　explanation　of　criminal　law.　Generally　speaking,　it　involves　three　aspects:　the　first　is　whether　it　has　effects　on　the　cases　happened　before　its　being　promulgated.　The　second　aspect　is　whether　it　has　effects　on　the　cases　that　happened　after　the　practice　in　its　own　explanatory　stimulation　provide　for　by　the　criminal　law　and　the　cases　happened　before　its　enforcement;　Thirdly,　how　to　deal　with　the　contradictious　regulations　in　different　judicial　explanations　enacted　in　different　time　but　regulated　a　same　performance　after　the　criminal　law　come　into　force.　Whether　the　new　judiciary　interpretation　in　criminal　law　possesses　retroaction.　No　hot　debates　are　involved　in　the　first　aspect.　The　controversy　is　to　the　latter　two　aspects,　and　is　talking　about　the　three　theories　related　to　this　question　in　China,　　　　Part　two　evaluates　the　three　theories　according　to　foreign　judiciary　interpretation,　the　process　in　the　development　of　judiciary　interpretation　in　china　and　　the　actual　situation　in　China.　First,　the　one　who　support　to　adopt　the　later　explanation　emphasized　on　the　ideal　purpose　of　the　explanation　which　origins　from　the　judicial　power.　Second,　the　one　who　support　to　adopt　the　earlier　or　less　severe　　explanation　emphasized　on　the　realistic　situation　of　China's　explanation.　Third,　the　one　who　support　to　adopt　the　explanation　flexible　sounds　reasonable　,　however,　it　is　hard　to　　operate.　　　　Part　three　arranges　the　causes　which　lead　to　the　controversy　in　judiciary　interpretation　retroaction,　analyses　basic　reason,　theoretical　reason,　legal　reason　and　technical　reason　that　produce　it.　　　In　Part　four,　the　author　puts　forward　his　inclined　opinion　and　and　insists　that　judiciary　interpretation　retroaction　should　adopt　the　principle　of　adopting　the　later　or　the　less　severe　explanation,　and　illustrates　the　reasons　and　basis　of　application.　　　Part　five　evaluates　　promulgated　in　2001,　and　points　out　the　disadvantage　in　its　existence　and　practice.　　　　In　a　word,　this　paper　arranges　all　kinds　o f　opinions　about　the　issue　in　retrievalbility　of　judicial　explanation　of　criminal　law,　analyses　the　causes　which　lead　to　controversy,　puts　forward　my　inclined　opinion　and　comments　on　　promulgated　in　2001.　On　the　basis　of　this,　I　hope　this　paper　would　be　some　help　in　the　practice　of　judiciary　interpretation　retroaction.