15 research outputs found
Ting Jih-ch'ang yĂĽ tzu-ch'iang yun-tung (Ting Jih-ch'ang and the self-strengthening movement). By LĂĽ Shih-ch'iang. Taipei: Chung-yang yen-chiu yĂĽan, Chintai shih yen-chiu-so, 1972. 416 pp. Notes, Bibliography, Table of Chinese-Eastern Names, Name Index U. S. 12.00 (paper).
Judicial Independence in China: Lessons for Global Rule of Law Promotion. Edited by Randall Peerenboom. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. x, 262 pp. 15.39 (electronic).
China's Quest for Railway Autonomy, 1904–1911: A Study of the Chinese Railway-Rights Recovery Movement. By En-han Lee. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1977. xxii, 316 pp. List of Chinese and Japanese Names and Terms, Map, Tables, Bibliography, Index. $15.95.
China Today, China Tomorrow: Domestic Politics, Economy, and Society. Edited by Joseph Fewsmith. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. ix, 334 pp. 34.95 (paper); $33.99 (electronic).
Political Parties in China’s Judiciary
Professor Suli delivered the Fifth Annual Herbert L. Bernstein Memorial Lecture in Comparative Law in 2006 and this article is based on his remarks, with a foreword by Jonathan Ocko. The article is included in the inaugural volume of CICLOPs thatcollects the first six Bernstein lectures. In responding to Sending Law to the Countryside, Professor Frank Upham levied a number of criticisms against Professor Zhu Suli’s book. Of particular importance was Upham’s criticism concerning a lack of attention to the role of politics and political power in the Chinese legal system. Suli finds this criticism to be extremely important because it reflects what Suli believes to be an inherent bias against and misunderstanding of the Chinese legal system and legal culture by Western comparative legal theorists. Suli asserts that this criticism is misguided because it overlooks the vast differences between legal thought in the vein of Western ideology versus the Chinese strain of legal thought. Arguing that Upham approaches Chinese law from a bias created by an inherently Western ideology concerning law, Suli argues that the culture and governmental framework of China blurs the traditional Western lines drawn between law and politics. By illustrating the weakness of Upham’s criticism through showing the particular methods that the Chinese legal system uses to achieve the goal of social order, Suli demonstrates the need for caution when engaging in comparative legal scholarship across two vastly different cultural and legal systems