Explaining the variations in legal mobilization of environmental nongovernmental organizations in authoritarian China: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

Despite the growing literature on legal mobilization under authoritarianism, the variations of legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes have been less studied. Drawing on a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 175 environmental public interest litigations from 2009 to 2019, as well as in-depth interviews with environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) representatives, this is the first article to present how organizational, political, legal, and social forces (which are demonstrated by six conditions: capacity, political embeddedness, political endorsement, access, legal stock, and alliance) combine to explain the variations of NGOs' environmental legal mobilization through the use of strategic and nonstrategic litigation in authoritarian China. Although the state's policy to pluralize regulatory actors to improve environmental governance has set up a relatively friendly institutional backdrop for environmental legal mobilization, this study finds that political forces such as the relationship between NGOs and the state and the ambivalent attitudes towards environmental protection between central and local government have significantly influenced the behavioral patterns of NGOs' legal mobilization. Moreover, this study uncovers four types of legal mobilization of Chinese environmental NGOs: allied mobilization, progressive mobilization, steered mobilization, and symbolic mobilization. This study enriches the understanding of the behavioral patterns of nonstate actors in legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes and beyond.     

High‐End Demand: The Legal Profession as a Source of Judicial Selection Reform in Urban China

Most studies of comparative judicial politics suggest that judicial autonomy emerges from democratic competition, but despite its authoritarian political system, China has introduced reforms that increase merit‐based competition, transparency, and modest professional autonomy in local courts. Variations in judicial selection procedures across urban China reflect differences in local markets for professional legal services: when mid‐ranking judges can easily find lucrative local employment as lawyers, court leaders strategically reform appointment and promotion mechanisms to retain these young, but experienced, judges. These findings are based on nearly fifteen months of in‐country fieldwork, conducted between 2012 and 2014, including forty‐nine interviews with judges across three different cities: Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chengdu. Employing the subnational comparative method, this article not only builds theory regarding the legal profession's role in authoritarian states, but also offers new empirical detail regarding the selection, performance evaluation, and behavior of judges in urban China.     

Law versus the State: The Judicialization of Politics in Egypt

This study seeks to explain the paradoxical expansion of constitutional power in Egypt over the past two decades, despite that country's authoritarian political system. I find that the Egyptian regime established an independent constitutional court, capable of providing institutional guarantees on the security of property rights, in order to attract desperately needed private investment after the failure of its socialist-oriented development strategy. The court continued to expand its authority, fundamentally transforming the mode of interaction between state and society by supporting regime efforts to liberalize the economy while simultaneously providing new avenues for opposition activists and human rights groups to challenge the state. The Egyptian case challenges some of our basic assumptions about the conditions under which we are likely to see a judicialization of politics, and it invites scholars to explore the dynamics of judicial politics in other authoritarian political systems.     

The Influence of the EU and the ECHR on ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty Regimes’: Assessing the Impact of European Integration on the British and Swedish Judiciaries

The paper analyses the consequences of European integration processes upon the judicial systems of the so‐called ‘parliamentary sovereignty regimes’, focusing on the British and Swedish judiciaries. The aim is to understand if the influences coming from European integration, favouring the expansion of domestic judicial power, have prevailed, or the traditional distrust of such countries in judicial power has prevented the empowerment of the domestic courts. The influences on the judicial systems are evaluated distinguishing judicial capacity, judicial attitudes and judicial independence. The paper argues that the political relevance of judges has strongly increased. However, while European integration has deeply transformed the formal means at disposal of judges, because of political and judicial culture the changes in actual judges' behaviour have been much more limited. Moreover, the paper highlights some unexpected ways in which European integration can affect the domestic political systems (eg favouring certain legislative reforms or legal principles).     

Judges,Conflict, and the Past

Drawing upon interviews with senior judicial figures in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, this article considers the role of the judiciary in a political conflict. Using the socio‐legal literature on judicial performance and audience as well as transitional justice scholarship, the article argues that judges in Northern Ireland ‘performed’ to a number of ‘imagined’ audiences including Parliament, ‘the public', and their judicial peers – all of which shaped their view of the judicial role. In light of ongoing efforts to deal with the past in the jurisdiction, and the experiences of other transitional societies, the article argues that the judiciary can and should engage in a mature, reflexive and, where appropriate, self‐critical examination of the good and bad of their own institutional history during the conflict. It also argues that such a review of judicial performance requires an external audience in order to encourage the judiciary to see truth beyond the limits of legalism.     

The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.     

1952年司法改革运动与法学界的反思——以北京市旧司法人员清理与改造为视角

1952年至1953年的司法改革运动是新中国成立后第一次司法改革,其理念与制度产物仍影响着现今司法体制的建构.司法改革运动的一条隐形动因是破解"案多人少",重塑审判工作模式,为新中国司法制度提供"人民属性"的法理诠释,并尝试建设"政治维度"、"人民维度"和"法律维度"和谐共生的新型司法制度.1957年整风期间,法学界对司法改革运动进行了反思与批判,但囿于意识形态干扰,最终酿成"反击右倾扩大化",导致"案多人少"的矛盾更加突出,司法制度全面倾斜"政治维度",进而演变成为新中国法制建设的灾难.     

Law against the Rule of Law: Assaulting Democracy

This article examines how authoritarian contenders use law to advance an agenda geared to exclusive state power in light of a paradigmatic case: the National Socialists’ takeover of the German state apparatus in spring 1933. This case highlights two ways in which an office holder is able to expand his power in an authoritarian fashion through legal dispositions. A conjunctural use of law for authoritarian purposes draws on legal statutes to undercut the political capacity of opponents and competitors, hollow out institutional checks, and crucially hamper civil freedoms. Taking advantage of constitutional provisions that make institutional subversion from within possible (‘constitutional Trojan horses’), a structural use of legal statutes reorders the power structure by reallocating decisional rights. In both cases, law serves as a weapon against the rule of law. These considerations raise the question of the standards by which we are to judge the legality of such acts. Contemporary instances of democratic backsliding are cases in point.     

行政诉讼司法建议制度的功能衍化

行政诉讼司法建议原本是一项裁判执行措施,但随着最高人民法院司法政策的变化,其发挥的事实功能被大大扩展。实践中,行政诉讼司法建议在规范性文件修改中发挥着功能性审查的作用。从社会变迁的视角观察不难发现,维稳压力、协调和解政策与地方发展型政府的模式变迁,诱发了对于行政诉讼司法建议的制度性需求,从而迫使司法建议成为行政诉讼工具箱中的重要工具。行政诉讼司法建议制度的功能衍化,为法社会学研究提供了一个极具价值的制度样本,亦为行政诉讼法的未来发展提供了背景材料。     

Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Does understanding how U.S. Supreme Court justices actually decide cases undermine the institutional legitimacy of the nation's highest court? To the extent that ordinary people recognize that the justices are deciding legal disputes on the basis of their own ideological biases and preferences (legal realism and the attitudinal model), the belief that the justices merely “apply” the law (mechanical jurisprudence and the myth of legality) is difficult to sustain. Although it is easy to see how the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the most unaccountable of all American political institutions, is nurtured by the view that judicial decisionmaking is discretionless and mechanical, the sources of institutional legitimacy under legal realism are less obvious. Here, we demonstrate, using a nationally representative sample, that the American people understand judicial decisionmaking in realistic terms, that they extend legitimacy to the Supreme Court, and they do so under the belief that judges exercise their discretion in a principled and sincere fashion. Belief in mechanical jurisprudence is therefore not a necessary underpinning of judicial legitimacy; belief in legal realism is not incompatible with legitimacy.     

Employment Discrimination Law and Industrial Psychology: Social Science as Social Authority and the Co‐Production of Law and Science

This article combines Monahan and Walker's classification of social facts, social authority, and social frameworks with political‐institutionalism's view of law and science as competing institutional logics to explain how, and with what consequences, employment discrimination law and industrial‐organizational (I‐O) psychology became co‐produced. When social science is incorporated into enforcement of legislative law as social authority—rationale for judicial rule making—law's institutional logic of relying on precedent and reasoning by analogy ensures that social science will have ongoing influence on law's development. By helping set research agendas and providing new professional opportunities, institutionalized legal doctrine shapes social science knowledge. But because of differences in institutional logic, wherein legal cumulation is backward looking whereas scientific cumulation is forward looking, co‐production of law and science may produce institutional mismatch between legal doctrine and scientific knowledge.     

Constitutional Review in the Member States of the EU-28: A Political Analysis of Institutional Choices

Literature in law and political science has suggested a number of factors explaining choices on the implementation of constitutional review. However, so far little is known about how such factors combine in order to lead to different models of review. With the aid of configurational research, this article sheds light on that question for all countries of the current EU-28. In this region, the Kelsenian model of specialized courts, the system of review by the judicial branch, and the model of parliamentary sovereignty still currently coexist. This article shows that phenomena such as the type of legal family of the country, an authoritarian past, or political fragmentation play a major role in choices of models of constitutional review. However, it is only when they combine that they are capable of leading to particular outcomes.     

中国宪法实施的双轨制

与许多西方国家的宪法实施模式不同,宪法审查并非中国宪法实施的主要方式。中国司法机关不能根据宪法直接审查立法的合宪性,而作为有权机关的全国人大常委会,也没有做出过宪法解释或宪法判断。这是中国宪法实施的真实状况,但不是中国宪法实施的全部。从比较法角度看,中国宪法更像一个政治纲领式的宣言,更多依靠政治化方式实施。伴随着法治化进程,中国的宪法实施逐渐由单一依靠政治化实施,过渡到政治化实施与法律化实施同步推进、相互影响的双轨制格局。宪法的政治化实施体现为执政党主导的政治动员模式,而宪法的法律化实施则是以积极性实施为主、消极性实施为辅的多元实施机制。在比较法的意义上,政治化实施和法律化实施的双轨制,可以为描述中国宪法实施提供一个理论框架。     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

中国现行法律解释制度研究

法律解释制度是国家法律制度整体中具有辐射性和跨越性的重要制度。全国人大常委会行使首要的法律解释权 ,解释法律应当遵循五道程序 ,法律解释同法律具有同等效力 ,最高司法机关可以就司法中具体应用法律的问题进行解释 ,这些内容构成了中国现行法律解释的制度框架。这一制度框架中 ,立法法规定的法律解释制度在法律意义上是成立的 ,1981年全国人大常委会关于加强法律解释工作的决议是否合法则存在疑问。现今绝大多数国家一般都以司法机关为主要的法律解释主体。中国实际采行的则是全国人大常委会和最高司法机关都解释法律的二元化体制 ,前者是法律上的首要法律解释主体 ,后者则是实践中最主要的法律解释主体。几十年间 ,全国人大常委会所作的法律解释为数非常有限 ,倒是法律上处于其次地位的最高司法机关的法律解释为数甚多。在人民代表大会制度下 ,由全国人大常委会行使首要的和主要的法律解释权 ,在逻辑上是成立的。然而逻辑上成立未必能完全解决问题。全国人大常委会会期不足因而不能随时根据需要解释法律 ,它并不具体应用法律因而难以适时就法律应用特别是法律适用做出法律解释。转变这种状况 ,单用所谓立法解释、司法解释、行政解释这种颇具中国特色的分类方法是不敷需要的。在法治发达的环境下     

Cause Lawyers,Political Violence,and Professionalism in Conflict

This article examines how cause lawyers in conflicted and authoritarian societies balance their professional responsibilities as lawyers with their commitment to a political cause. It is drawn from extensive interviews with both lawyers and political activists in a range of societies. It focuses on the challenges for lawyers in managing relations with violent politically‐motivated clients and their movements. Using the notion of ‘legitimation work', it seeks to examine the complex, fluid, and contingent understandings of legal professionalism that is developed in such contexts, offering three overlapping ‘ideal types’ of cause lawyers in order to better understand the meaning of legal professionalism in such sites: (a) struggle lawyers (b) human rights activists and (c) a ‘pragmatic moral community'. The article concludes by re‐examining how law is imagined in the legitimation work of cause lawyers in such settings and how that work is remembered in the transition from violence.     

中国司法地方保护主义之批判——兼论“司法权国家化”的司法改革思路

司法独立作为一项人权原则和法治原则 ,已被国际社会广泛接受 ,并且已经形成其国际标准。中国在宪法和法律中 ,也对司法独立作了原则性的确认和规定。但是 ,由于中国司法存在着较为严重的地方保护主义 ,形成了“司法权地方化”的格局 ,破坏了法制的统一和司法独立原则的实施。中国司法地方保护主义有其深厚的体制性根源和思想文化根源。解决中国司法地方保护主义问题就需要彻底地改造形成“司法权地方化”的体制性因素 ,以“司法权国家化”作为司法体制改革的思路 ,并以此进行相应的司法制度设计。     

Dialogue with Dictators: Judicial Resistance in Argentina and Brazil

Throughout the world, judges are often asked to implement the repressive measures of authoritarian rulers. Which conception of legal interpretation and judicial role, if any, make judges more likely to resist such pressures? That question, central to Anglo-American jurisprudence since the Hart-Fuller debate, is addressed by examining recent military rule in Argentina and Brazil. In Argentina, judges were sympathetic to military rule and so criticized its “excesses” in the jurisprudential terms favored by the juntas: positivism and legal realism. Brazilian judges, by contrast, were largely unsympathetic to military rule, and so couched their criticism in terms of natural law, in order to raise larger questions and reach a broader public. Empirical study of the cases and conceptual analysis of existing theories both reveal that no view of legal interpretation inherently disposes its adherents to either accept or repudiate repressive law. Contingent political circtrmstances—the rulers’favored form of legal rhetoric, and the degree to which judges accept the need for a period of extra-constitutional rule—determine which legal theory fosters most resistance. But since most authoritarian rulers nominally affirm their constitutional predecessors’positive law and are often unwilling to codify publicly their most repressive policies, strict literalism usually offers the most congenial idiom for judicial resistance to such regimes.     

“法庭之友”制度的基础与运行机制——以吴英案为中心的分析

"法庭之友"制度的构建、运行及其功能发挥需要司法的独立与权威、有赖于良好的舆论环境和成熟的社会组织的支撑。在民众广泛参与、理性发表法律意见的前提下,出现了社会精英主导舆论走向、主流意见趋于统一、舆论表现出更强的社会责任感的发展趋势,这就为"法庭之友"制度的建构提供了舆论结构基础。"法庭之友"制度有助于疏通政治渠道、凝聚民意、弥补法官知识的缺陷、分担法院责任、推动法律发展,因而具有促进司法的法律效果和社会效果有机统一的制度功能。"法庭之友"制度功能的发挥,在很大程度上有赖于法院通过尊重、评价、吸纳机制所给予的司法支持。"法庭之友"制度在凝练主流民意、优化舆论环境、构建信任基础和消解政治压力方面对我国司法制度的改革与完善具有重要的借鉴意义。我们应该在借鉴国外有益经验的基础上,结合我国的司法国情,合理定位"法庭之友"的功能、框定适用范围、界定合适主体、构筑严密正当的程序,建构中国特色的"法庭之友"制度。     

The Middlemen: The Legal Profession,the Rule of Law,and Authoritarian Regimes

Scholars are increasingly interested in exploring ways to strengthen the rule of law in authoritarian states—especially when deeper political reforms are not attainable. The article contributes to this discussion by revisiting the story of the emergence of the so‐called socialist legality in the communist states of Eastern Europe. Using the historical record from Poland, the author demonstrates a previously unnoticed, yet pivotal, role of legal professionals in facilitating socialist legality's rise to prominence. Using the lenses of Pierre Bourdieu's theory of fields, the article chronicles the evolving dynamic between the legal profession, the authoritarian regime, and society. These observations challenge conventional explanations of the emergence of the rule of law in nondemocratic conditions.