China Civil Trial System Reform Conception

The trial grade system is an important part of the judicial system and the supporting system of civil action. Based on the basic theories of modern civil action, the author puts forward some constructive suggestions on the reform of the trial grade system in China in the angle of civil action after an analysis of the civil trial grade system in both China and foreign countries. On the basis of the reality of judicial construction in China, the paper makes a thorough study of the civil trial grade system in China. It consists of four parts.Part one is about the basic theories of the trial grade system and civil action. Firstly, the author makes a definition of the trial grade system. Based on the definition, the author holds that the trial grade is not equal to the court grade. The former is the basis for the latter and the basis for establishing and dividing the latter. Also, the system of the second trial instance as the final is not equal to the trial grade system. It just complements and guarantees the latter. Secondly, the author analyses the relationship between the theories of the trial grade system and those of civil action, holding that the establishment of the trial grade system is closely related to the basic theories of civil action with the former being the tool to realize the theories of the latter and the latter being the basis for the former. Based on the idea, the author focuses on the basic part of the trial grade system and the theories of civil action, namely, the relationship between fairness and efficiency of civil action. The author holds that in order to establish a scientific trial grade system, the key factor is to well balance fairness and efficiency, so either of the two aspects should not be neglected.Part Two is an analysis and evaluation of the trial grade system in foreign countries. The author makes textual criticism of the trial grade system in western countries, pointing out the differences and identities of these systems and summing up some laws governing the system. The author holds that most of the western countries adopt the system of the third instance as the final, which realizes the pluralistic trial grade system, and thereby differs fact trial from legal trial, allows bypassing the immediate leadership and presenting appeals to higher levels, and is strict with the appeal in the third instance. The experience of the trial grade system in these countries, which reflects the basic theory, the structure and the function of modern trial grade system, accords with the demands of modern judicature and should be used for reference in China.Part three is the history and current situation of the trial grade system in China. Firstly, the author makes an approach to its history in China, Secondly, the author makes an analysis of the features of the current trial grade system in China and the reasons for establishing such a system. Finally, the author analyses the problems existing in the system. The authors holds that it is difficult for the current system to overcome local protectionism. and guarantee trial quality and judicial unity. The internal function of the system is in disorder and it is hard to harmonize with the external relief mechanism and adapt to the reality of law cases. Also, with the development of society and economy, the social position of the court is rising while the disadvantages of current trial grade system are becoming more and more conspicuous. Therefore, it is extremely urgent to reform the system.Part Four is about the reforms of the trial grade system in China. Firstly, the author makes a definition of the nature and the function of court at different levels and regulates trial grade administration. Secondly, the author holds that China should adopt a multi-level trial grade system which is based on the system of the third instance as final with the first instance or the second instance as exception and supplement, The author also puts forwards some ideas of the system, that is, adopting legal trial in the third instance and the system of allowing lodging an appeal in the third instance, having after-the-event trial as the principle of the third instance, and allowing bypassing the immediate leadership to make an appeal. Finally, the author makes an approach to the linkage between the system of the third instance as the final and the system of the second instance as the final, holding that establishing the former should be accompanied by the regulation and strict limitation of the application of the second trial procedures. Furthermore, only through perfecting the system of the second instance as the final and establishing the system of the third instance as the final at the same time in a harmonious way can the ultimate goal of reconstructing the trial grade system—the realization of judicial fairness be realized.