How Does Legalism Deal With Challenges?

Looking at the legal profession in China for nearly 20 years,the topic of legalism has always been looming.Usually,anti-legalists criticize that "lawfulness has a tendency to be departmental,overemphasizing the importance of norms,thus ignoring the importance of factors such as value and fact." The legalists would refute that“what anti-legalists criticize is an outdated legalism(such as conceptual law and legal formalism),rather than a developed,evolved,and constantly revised legalism.Although the criticism of anti-legalists has certain rationality,it may shake the foundation of the rule of law and is not conducive to the development of the rule of law,while the legalism has the rationality of existence and the priority of development.It is this kind of atmosphere that permeates the "collective reflection of criticism and counter-criticism" between anti--legalists and the legalists,which makes the problem of "how legalism deals with challenges" gradually emerge.In the discussion on the question "how Legalism deals with challenges" and its related schemes,it mainly includes the following aspects: First,the interpretation of the concept of legalism.The answer to the question of "what is lawfulness" is closely related to the overall reflective question of "how legalism deals with challenges",because in theory and in reality we always have "law".There is one or the other misunderstanding of the concept of "Legalism",such as considering that it is "constrained by rules" or "part of conceptual law and legal formalism",and so on.Through the analysis of the meaningof legalism,we find that legalism actually has the potential of “expanding change”,but it is not completely closed and rigid;through the comparison of legalism and its related concepts,we find the legal formalism,legal realism,and legal pragmatism have certain advantages and disadvantages in the understanding of legalism.Therefore,it is believed that a moderately moderate proportion or an "Archimedes fulcrum" should be found to re-understand legalism;through the re-understanding of legalism,we propose that the legalism is regarded as the minimum commitment,the legalism is swinging between norms and facts,and the legalism has pluralism and conformity.The second is the description and analysis of the realistic dilemma of legalism.The realistic predicament of legalism mainly includes "the lack of value of legalism","the fact ambiguity of legalism" and "the normative confusion of legalism",which belongs to "the accuracy of law." For example,in view of the problem of lack of value,it reflects the pluralism and change of society.Therefore,the legalism in which it is included,such as the legislative value,trial value,institutional value,public opinion value and so on,must be pluralistic and changeable.It is necessary for trial value to moderately repair the legislative value and enhance the institutional capacity to cope with the collision between institutional value and public opinion value.Another example is the problem that the facts are unclear,which reflects the advantages and disadvantages of the specialization procedures.In fact,in the program,impurities and key elements are filtered in the procedure,resulting in trial errors or even misjudgments.From this perspective,it is necessary to expand the procedures to prevent key elements from being filtered to achieve reasonable facts and to obtain reasonable judgments.In addition,we must also emphasize the interaction between the procedures and people.After all,the talent is the last to manipulate the procedures,because "the law is not enough to itself",so it is important to improve the quality of people(including the ability to adjust the procedures).Another example is the problem of normative confusion,which reflects the gap between history and reality,so we need to shorten this gap within a certain time limit.The third is the generalization and argumentation of the theoretical response to legalism,and this is also the "final plan" of the question "How does Legalism deal with challenges?" Bycomparing the dispute between legal dogmatism and social science law,the debate between legalist justice and activist justice,and the controversy between methodology of legalism and consequentialism,we further propose to expand the scope of legalism and promote its practice.In response to the previous claim,we believe that in the handling of cases(especially the handling of “doubt cases”),we must try to ask the question “what is the law” and related problem groups,and test legal professional opinions and non-legal professional opinions(the law applies to the group language)and the plan to optimize the design of handling difficult cases.In response to the latter claim,we believe that there should be tolerance for diversity and value reciprocity,reasonable facts and their limits,and the globalization of norms and norms of deformation,although there may be many problems in reality.As a result,while legalism seeks to “cleanse itself”,it also responds to various challenges and crises in a more “comprehensive” way.