Judicialization of the Chinese Constitution Revisited: Empirical Evidence from Court Data

Daniel Sprick
{"title":"Judicialization of the Chinese Constitution Revisited: Empirical Evidence from Court Data","authors":"Daniel Sprick","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3333958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The repeal of Qi Yuling v. Chen Xiaoqi in 2008 seemed to bring an official end to China’s judicialization of its constitution. The application of the Chinese constitution has since been banned from judicial practice, although legal disputes that entail constitutional arguments nevertheless continue to be argued before the courts. This article is based on a study of more than 900 court cases heard between 2014 and 2016 in which judges referred to the constitution for their legal reasoning. The cases were retrieved from the China Judgements Online database. In the article, I demonstrate the mechanism and effects of this low-key constitutional jurisprudence in three case groups depicting different understandings of the constitution at the local level.","PeriodicalId":84778,"journal":{"name":"Free China review","volume":"45 1 1","pages":"41 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Free China review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract:The repeal of Qi Yuling v. Chen Xiaoqi in 2008 seemed to bring an official end to China’s judicialization of its constitution. The application of the Chinese constitution has since been banned from judicial practice, although legal disputes that entail constitutional arguments nevertheless continue to be argued before the courts. This article is based on a study of more than 900 court cases heard between 2014 and 2016 in which judges referred to the constitution for their legal reasoning. The cases were retrieved from the China Judgements Online database. In the article, I demonstrate the mechanism and effects of this low-key constitutional jurisprudence in three case groups depicting different understandings of the constitution at the local level.
重新审视中国宪法的司法化:来自法院数据的经验证据
摘要:2008年齐玉玲诉陈晓琪案的撤销似乎标志着中国宪法司法化的正式终结。自那以后,中国宪法的适用在司法实践中被禁止,尽管涉及宪法争论的法律纠纷仍在法庭上继续辩论。本文基于对2014年至2016年间审理的900多起法院案件的研究,在这些案件中,法官在进行法律推理时参考了宪法。这些案件是从中国裁判文书在线数据库中检索的。在本文中,我通过三个案例组展示了这种低调的宪法学的机制和效果,这些案例组描绘了地方层面对宪法的不同理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信