“We assume they want to be us,” Liebman says. And, to be sure, China has established professional standards that have moved its judiciary in our direction. Since 2002, Liebman notes, new judges have been required to hold undergraduate degrees—though not necessarily in the law—and to pass a national bar exam. (If that sounds like a low standard, it’s worth noting that up until 1994, no qualifications at all were required.)
Yet China’s courts are as deeply committed to populism as they are to professionalism. If Chinese judges decide to ignore a law in order to preserve thousands of jobs, they aren’t violating a sacred legal precept. “They’re supposed to take into account popular interests,” Liebman explains. “Populism in China isn’t just about ensuring courts are controlled by the Party. It’s an effort by courts to make themselves more responsive and accessible to the people. Professionalism hasn’t given courts more authority; the question is whether populism will.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment