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.

Notes

Originally published in Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 581-616, September 1999.

Keywords

judicial discretion, China

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

Click button above to open, or right-click to save.

Share

COinS