Abstract
This article examines the three types of judicial discretion that exists in any legal system – fact based discretion; self-interested discretion, and ideological discretion -- in the context of China. Through its procedural laws, the Chinese legal system demonstrated a continuing preference for informality and flexibility. While concept of supervision and the procedure of adjudication supervision are efforts to constrain fact-based and self-serving personal discretion, the concept of “supervision” is also a window to ensure ideological compliance in individual judicial work.
Disciplines
International Law
Publisher
University of Washington School of Law
Publication Date
9-1999
Rights Information
Copyright 1999 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association.
Rights Holder
Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association
Permanent URL
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20002530
Recommended Citation
Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 581-616, September 1999.
Click button above to open, or right-click to save.
Notes
Originally published in Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 581-616, September 1999.