Seitenhistorie

...

...

1. It does not meet the requirement of generating legal certainty and predictability. Due to lacuna in legislation and especially because of the circumstances the legal practice of many statutory provisions is unclear it is often impossible to know whether one behaves in conformity with the law. There is no system of regular case reporting.
2. The legal system is not in accordance with the requirement of a statutory basis of executive action. Although the National People's Congress is considered by the Constitution as the "highest organ of state power" it convenes only one three-weeks-session yearly, and even most members of its Standing Committee work not on a fulltime basis. The constitution does still not contain the provision that rights and freedoms may - under certain conditions (as to maintain social order, advance public welfare etc.) - be restricted only by statute law: instead fazhi is interpreted to mean rule by "statute laws and administrative regulations", allowing the executive to curtail individual rights not only under statute laws, but also under State Council regulations and even decrees of ministries and local governments. As a result, laws enacted by the legislative typically include such provisions as "the promulgation of an enforcement rule is entrusted to (a specific agency)", and the executive branch enjoys wide discretionary power, empowered to issue any regulations it preferred. The net result is that individual rights are infringed upon whenever it is deemed necessary. Even the limited frame which the Legislation Law of 2000 provides for the principle of reservation of law (Vorbehalt des Gesetzes) is not respected in practice, as e. g. the notorious system of "re-education through labour", which continues to be based on State Council ordinances, demonstrates. The 2004 addition to the constitution according to which "the state respects and guarantees human rights" (art. 33 III) remains largely an expression of intention.
3. The judiciary is not independent from influence of executive (including party) organs, the professional quality of judges is low, the system of a national uniform judicial examination started only in 2002 (Ahl 2006), defense lawyers work under the threat of flexibly formulated criminal law provisions (art. 306), law firms challenging the authorities are shut down under the pretext of having offended against certain administrative rules or having committed tax evasion, free debates of political questions can be prosecuted as a crime of "subverting the state power" (art. 105), there exists only very limited access to the courts for the review of administrative acts (the whole sector of basic rights as provides for in the constitution is excluded), and there is no judicial review of normative acts.
4. The role of the Party is not spelled out clearly in law.

Fazhi Accordingly, fazhi as expressed in the current legal system thus neither sufficiently comprise comprises legal certainty nor the protection of human rights. Therefore it is sometimes assumed that the slogan fazhi is used as a propaganda tool to enhance the legitimacy of the ruler and to attract the people's support for the regime.  This, however, would be far too short an evaluation of the significance of fazhi in contemporary China. This significance cannot be limited to the manifestation of fazhi in the current legal system, it must rather be understood as an ongoing process which has started only recently, a process to which a Chinese author has referred to as "one of the most exciting events in the world today" (Zhang 2002, 14).

...

Expectations in society concerning further developing of fazhi are growing fast; the Chinese legal system responds only reluctantly. China needs time, as others needed before, and probably more – - considering the fact that Chinese tradition – - from Confucianism to Communism - did more to spoil than to prepare the soil for a ready acceptance of fazhi as a value by the general populace (Hu 2006).