Font Size: a A A

Study Of How To Improve Judicial Efficiency In China

Posted on:2016-07-05Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:Y S TangFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330482965398Subject:Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Viewing handling cases from the perspective of resolving social disputes, we will find an interesting phenomenon:sometimes many cases together can not resolve a dispute, but sometimes from one case’s beginning can right away resolve a lot of disputes. Where is the difference between them? Currently, "Numerous Cases Few Judges" is the prominent contradiction in courts. In order to solve this contradiction, courts have taken many effective measures, but these measures are too concerned in the end of resolving conflicts and disputes, rather than seizing the source of the problem. From analysis of some typical cases, by taking sociological analysis method and exploring the currently available human and material resources, this paper will start from the root causes of disputes to improve judicial efficiency and solve the "Numerous Cases Few Clerks" contradiction.The first part of this paper discusses the concept and constituent elements of judicial efficiency and the current status when People’s Courts are facing the "Numerous Cases few clerks" contradiction. Besides, this part also analyze the underlying reasons why there are so many cases in society and all kinds of negative effects brought by "Numerous Cases few clerks" contradiction.The second part of this paper discusses the existing methods to enhance judicial efficiency, such as "Service Limit Law" in the Song Dynasty and the methods in nowadays like "Speed Judgment When Small", diversified resolving dispute mechanisms, trial management enhancement and sequence management by a judge alone and so. These methods all make positive contributions to enhance judicial efficiency. However, they exist a common limitation. This paper reveals the limitation is:heavily stick at disputes themselves and always start from the end of resolving disputes without seizing the root causes of social disputes’ generation.The third part of this paper analyze why we must focus on the root causes of disputes’ generation to improve judicial efficiency. From a case, currently, most of cases accepted by courts are "Homologous" disputes and can be resolved together; From the whole, instigation in courts tends to be concentrated and categorized. This phenomenon reflects that social issues and related legal norms embodied by court litigation also are comparably concentrated. Based on this, the author cites two extreme cases to illustrate that seizing the root causes of social disputes’generation to resolve disputes can greatly enhance judicial efficiency. In order to prove the feasibility of above theory, the author analyze the reason from perspectives of sociology, jurisprudence and judicial activism.The fourth part is the core of this paper. The Key to reduce the"Input and Output Ratio" in court is how to resolve disputes just through one case and even to avoid a series of disputes. Moreover, the sociology tells us that once people reach a certain ".Consensus", then people will criticize and reject the people who violate norms and thereby expand the effect of punishment and accelerate "Norms Internalization". And the more of "Norms Internalization" exist, the less of antisocial behaviors happen and social disputes and contradictions will be also reduced accordingly. So, in response to "Numerous Cases Few Clerks", courts should not only effectively resolve social disputes, but also need to take measures to promote the formation of social "Consensus" and to promote the "Legal Norms Internalization".Besides, the author explores other two paths to resolve "Numerous Cases Few Judges" contradiction. The first path is to seize the direct root of multiple disputes’ generation, to summary upgrades of existing work experience from judicial proceedings themselves and to achieve the goal of "from beginning to resolve more than one case of dispute" by the way of "Joint Trial of Separate Cases" and "Joint Conciliation of Multi-cases". The second path is to seize the underlying root causes of categorized disputes’ generations and to promote "Legal Norms Internalization" by data, cases and the formation of social "Consensus". To achieve the above ideas, the author also recommends all judges in courts participate and build up the bottom-up theoretical research system.
Keywords/Search Tags:Judicial efficiency, Numerous cases few judges, ADR, Judicial statistics, Judicial publicity
PDF Full Text Request
Related items