Legal Innovations in Asia
Show Less

Legal Innovations in Asia

Judicial Lawmaking and the Influence of Comparative Law

Edited by John O. Haley and Toshiko Takenaka

Legal Innovations in Asia explores how law in Asia has developed over time as a result of judicial interpretation and innovations drawn from the legal systems of foreign countries. Expert scholars from around the world offer a history of law in the region while also providing a wider context for present-day Asian law. The contributors share insightful perspectives on comparative law, the role of courts, legal transplants, intellectual property, Islamic law and other issues as they relate to the practice and study of law in Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea and Southeast Asia.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3.4: Judicial activism in China

Vai Io Lo


Judicial activism versus judicial restraint is a perennial theme in legal literature. Based on the principle of separation of powers, judicial activism frequently carries a negative connotation, while judicial restraint is championed as the antidote for unbridled discretion. Since China launched economic reforms in the late 1970s, the Chinese judiciary has undertaken various reforms, especially in terms of the qualification of judges, the judicial processes and the role of the court in society. Indeed, the past three decades witnessed an oscillation of advocacy, between inquisitorial and adversarial trial proceedings, between professionalism and populism, and between activism and passivism. In recent years, Chinese judges have been urged to be active, rather than passive or neutral, in executing their responsibilities. Considering the currency and relevancy of “active judicature” (nengdong sifa), this chapter attempts to investigate judicial activism in China. Toward this end, the following discussion is composed of three sections. To situate the Chinese experience in a comparative context, section II provides a succinct account of judicial activism as understood in common law countries. Section III discusses judicial activism with Chinese characteristics, focusing on judicial interpretations (sifa jieshi) and “active judicature” and highlighting the Chinese characteristics, even though the present study is not intended to be a comparative analysis. Taking the discussion to a more general level, section IV draws conclusions in light of China’s ongoing efforts to build an effective legal system. In 1947, Schlesinger coined the term “judicial activism” in a magazine article, but he did not really define the parameters of the term.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.