Author:
Chen Benjamin M.,Li Zhiyu,Cai David,Ash Elliott
Abstract
AbstractSocialist courts are supposed to apply the law, not make it, and socialist legality denies judicial decisions any precedential status. In 2011, the Chinese Supreme People’s Court designated selected decisions as Guiding Cases to be referred to by all judges when adjudicating similar disputes. One decade on, the paucity of citations to Guiding Cases has been taken as demonstrating the incongruity of case-based adjudication and the socialist legal tradition. Citations are, however, an imperfect measure of influence. Reproduction of language uniquely traceable to Guiding Cases can also be evidence of their impact on judicial decision-making. We employ a local alignment tool to detect unattributed text reuse of Guiding Cases in local court decisions. Our findings suggest that Guiding Cases are more consequential than commonly assumed, thereby complicating prevailing narratives about the antagonism of socialist legality to case law.
Funder
Hong Kong Research Grants Council
Durham University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Artificial Intelligence
Reference58 articles.
1. Ahl B (2014) Retaining judicial professionalism: the new Guiding Cases mechanism of the Supreme People’s Court. China Q 271:121–139
2. Altschul SF (2014) BLAST algorithm. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences. Wiley, Chichester
3. Ash E, MacLeod BW (2021) Reducing partisanship in judicial election can improve judge quality: evidence from US state supreme courts. J Public Econ 201:1–22
4. Baker S, Feibelman A, Marshall WP (2009) The continuing search for a meaningful model of judicial rankings and why it (unfortunately) matters. Duke Law J 58:1645–1666
5. Cohen M (2017) Spring time for IPR Case Law in China? Retrieved 31 Jan, 2022, from https://chinaipr.com/2017/03/12/spring-time-for-ipr-case-law-in-china/