Supreme Courts In Transition In China And The West

This edited volume looks at supreme courts in China and the West. It examines the differences and similarities between the Supreme People’s Court of Mainland China and those that follow Western models. It also offers a comparative study of a selection of supreme courts in Europe and Latin America. The contributors argue that the Supreme Courts should give guidance to the development of the law and provide legal unity. For China, the Chinese author argues, that therefore there should be more emphasis on the procedure for reopening cases. The chapters on Western-style supreme courts argue that there should be adequate access filters; the procedure of reopening cases is considered to be problematic from the perspective of the finality of the administration of justice. In addition, the authors discuss measures that allow supreme courts in both regions to deal with their existing caseload, to reduce this caseload, and to avoid divergences in the case law of the supreme court. This volume offers ideas that will help supreme courts in both the East and the West to remove unmanageable caseloads. As a result, these courts will be better able to assist in the interpretation and clarification of the law, to provide for legal unity, and to give guidance to the development of the law.

This book discusses civil litigation at the supreme courts of nine jurisdictions – Argentina, Austria, Croatia, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States – and focuses on the available instruments used to keep the caseload of these courts within acceptable limits. Such instruments are necessary in order to allow supreme courts to fulfil their main duties, that is, the administration of justice in individual cases (private function) and providing for the uniformity and development of the law within their respective jurisdictions (public function). If the number of cases at the supreme court level is too high, the result is undue delays, which are mainly problematic with regard to the private function. It may also put the quality of the court’s judgments under pressure, which can affect its public and private function alike. Thus, measures aimed at avoiding excessive caseloads need to take both functions into account. Increasing the capacity of the court to handle larger numbers of cases may result in the court being unable to adequately fulfil its public function, since large numbers of court decisions make it difficult to guarantee the uniformity of the law and its development. Therefore, a balanced approach is needed to safeguard capacity and quality. As shown by the contributions gathered here, the nature of reform in this area is not the same everywhere. There are a variety of reasons for this heterogeneity, ranging from different understandings of the caseload problem itself, local conceptions regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court, and strong entitlements concerning the right to appeal to budgetary restrictions and extremely rigid legislation. The book also shows that the implementation of similar solutions to case overload, such as access filters, may have different effects in different jurisdictions. The conclusion might well be that the problem of overburdened courts is multifactorial and context-dependent, and that easy, one-size-fits-all solutions are hard to find and perhaps even harder to implement.

The information age provides novel tools for case management. While technology plays a crucial role, the way in which courts are structured is still critical in ensuring effective case management. The correlation between court structure and case management is a pivotal topic. The existing debate concentrates predominantly on the micro and case-specific aspects of case management, without further inquiry into the relationship between court structure, court management, and case management. The contributions within this volume fill this gap from a comparative perspective, undertaking a macro/structural and sub-macro perspective of procedure and case management.

National civil justice systems are deeply rooted in national legal cultures and traditions. However, in the past few decades they have been increasingly influenced by integration processes at the regional, supra-national and international level. As a by-product of the emergence of economic and political unions and globalisation processes there is pressure to harmonise or even unify the way in which national civil justice systems operate. In an attempt to create a ‘genuine area of justice’, new unified procedures are being developed, which operate in parallel with national civil procedures, and sometimes even strive to replace them. As a reaction to the forces that endeavour to harmonise and unify procedural laws and practices, an opposing trend is gaining momentum: one that insists on diversity and pluralism of national civil procedures. This book focuses on the evolution of procedural reforms in various jurisdictions and the ongoing transformation of national civil justice systems.

Drawing insights from economics and political science, Judging Regulators explains why the administrative law of the US and the UK has radically diverged from each other on questions of law, fact, and discretion.

This innovative book explores the legal character of petroleum licences, a key vehicle governing the relationship between oil companies and their host states. Examining the issue through the lens of legal culture, it illustrates why some jurisdictions exert strong state control and others only minimal.

This book examines the learning curve of the People's Supreme Court of China as an expanding Chinese national institution that has played a key role in the struggle for the rule of law in China. Within the unity of state administration and the requirements of the constitution, the court has negotiated the changing tension between politics and law through improvising new formats of interpretation and supervision in response to the changing priorities of revolution and market reform.