In early China, ordinary people had a ＂right＂ to demand for justice and they often exerted that ＂right＂. Due to the nature of our sources, which are preoccupied with the concerns of the governing elite, the ordina...In early China, ordinary people had a ＂right＂ to demand for justice and they often exerted that ＂right＂. Due to the nature of our sources, which are preoccupied with the concerns of the governing elite, the ordinary people＇s voices are often lost, but even the scanty evidence that we have suggests that ordinary people did not always passively wait for justice to be delivered to them by the authorities. On one hand, the elites recognized that all human being had the sense of justice and its expression was a natural tendency, on the other hand, ordinary people and elites actively demanded justice at least in three ways： they cried out to redress the injustices they had encountered; they honored the impartial judges for their honesty and fairness; and they protested against injustices through collective actions.展开更多
As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observatio...As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observation and analysis confined to litigation costs, that can legitimize the sharing of court and litigation costs and clarify the demarcation between public and private costs. This first-order rule of cost-sharing is intended to establish a balance between the state＇s investment of public resources in the judicial system and the costs borne by the litigant. The second-order rule of cost-sharing centers on the distribution of litigation costs among litigants. This requires not only the setting up of the goal of just and equitable sharing of litigation costs, but also the overall consideration of the adjustment function of the cost mechanism in litigation and pursuit of the general improvement of the justice system. The third-order cost-sharing rule should focus on giving full play to the legal services market and social organizations in sharing the cost of litigation. Its success will depend on the development of professional ethics and on legal regulation.展开更多
文摘In early China, ordinary people had a ＂right＂ to demand for justice and they often exerted that ＂right＂. Due to the nature of our sources, which are preoccupied with the concerns of the governing elite, the ordinary people＇s voices are often lost, but even the scanty evidence that we have suggests that ordinary people did not always passively wait for justice to be delivered to them by the authorities. On one hand, the elites recognized that all human being had the sense of justice and its expression was a natural tendency, on the other hand, ordinary people and elites actively demanded justice at least in three ways： they cried out to redress the injustices they had encountered; they honored the impartial judges for their honesty and fairness; and they protested against injustices through collective actions.
文摘As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observation and analysis confined to litigation costs, that can legitimize the sharing of court and litigation costs and clarify the demarcation between public and private costs. This first-order rule of cost-sharing is intended to establish a balance between the state＇s investment of public resources in the judicial system and the costs borne by the litigant. The second-order rule of cost-sharing centers on the distribution of litigation costs among litigants. This requires not only the setting up of the goal of just and equitable sharing of litigation costs, but also the overall consideration of the adjustment function of the cost mechanism in litigation and pursuit of the general improvement of the justice system. The third-order cost-sharing rule should focus on giving full play to the legal services market and social organizations in sharing the cost of litigation. Its success will depend on the development of professional ethics and on legal regulation.
