On 26 September 2023, a hybrid seminar titled “The Evolving Case Law System in China” was jointly hosted by the Finnish China Law Center and GENIAL. The event featured Qiao Liu, Professor and Deputy Director of the Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong as the speaker, and Jaakko Husa, Full Professor in Law and Globalisation at the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki presided as the chair of the seminar.
Professor Liu described judges making law as an inevitable trend in China which arises from the abstractness of the provisions of laws, the imperative to to maintain consistency in judicial decisions as well as the vertical control exercised by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) over lower courts.
Professor Liu elaborated that the SPC is empowered to select, edit and re-write its own judgments and cases from lower levels and publish them as guiding cases. All guiding cases are approved by the SPC Judicial Committee and adopt a defined structure and style. People’s courts of all levels should canzhao [参照,] guiding cases when deciding similar cases. He emphasized that this entails that the people’s courts should not only consider but also follow these guiding cases. The guiding cases, however, function differently from precedents in common law systems. While the people’s courts may cite guiding cases in the legal reasoning section of judgment, only essential points/rules section of a guiding case should be canzhaoed. The application of guiding cases is increasing, yet judges frequently refrain from expressly citing them within their judgments.
In addition, cases and SPC judgments published on the SPC Gazette, although lacking legal binding, can have influence in judicial practice. The extent of this influence varies depending on specific circumstances. Not only the cases published in the SPC Gazette, but judgments decided by higher-level or specialized courts also carry weight. These cases may assume special significance within a field of law. For instance, an earlier decision of a High People’s Court may directly impact the decision of an Intermediate People’s Court below, or a decision of a specialized court may be viewed as persuasive authority on legal issues falling within its area of expertise.
In today’s post, the Finnish China Law Center is pleased to introduce the research project ‘The Rise of China and Normative Transformation in the Arctic Region’ led by Dr. Sanna Kopra, Academy of Finland post-doctoral researcher in the Arctic Centre at the University of Lapland, visiting scholar in Aleksanteri Institute at the University of Helsinki, and Senior Fellow at the Arctic Institute.
The research not only addresses China’s interests and activities in the Arctic, but also investigates the normative transformation those activities may support or initiate in the Arctic region. The project asks, with China’s growing role in the area, what kind of impacts it could have in the normative framework in the Arctic, what kind of norms China wants to promote or not to promote in the regional, and how the existing governance framework, particularly the Arctic Council, has addressed China’s involvement in the region. The project’s key concept is the notion of responsibility. Thus, it also examines China’s notion of responsibility in the Arctic, whether it is deferred from the one formulated by other Arctic players, especially the 8 Arctic states, and whether there is some normative discourse or differentiation between the non-Arctic states and Arctic states, etc.
Regarding research methodology, Dr. Kopra mainly uses content analysis and discourse analysis. Having a strong interest in history, she aims to combine also the historical approach to shed light on the historical evolution of the normative framework and notion of responsibility in the Arctic.
As part of the project, Dr. Kopra spent two months on a research exchange at the University of Tromsø in Norway during 2019. ‘It was a good academic exchange. It helped me develop new ideas, receive helpful feedback, and get new information and data’, she said. She plans to conduct a research visit to Iceland next spring.
The Finnish China Law Center is pleased to welcome Professor Björn Ahl who will start as the new part-time visiting professor at the University of Helsinki from October 2020.
Björn Ahl is Professor and Chair of Chinese Legal Culture at the University of Cologne. He is also President of the European China Law Studies Association (ECLS).
Professor Ahl has vast experience in China law research. His research focuses on constitutional development, in particular on judicial reforms and rights litigation, in China. Chinese administrative law and practice of public international law are a further focal point of his research. Moreover, his areas of interest include comparative law, legal transfers, and legal culture, which are related to Greater China and Chinese legal development.
Professor Ahl will collaborate with the Center in multiple areas of Chinese law such as comparative law, public law, social credit system, court practice, and Chinese interpretation of international law. The collaboration aims at advancing research in Chinese law at the European level.
On Friday 13 September 2019, Professor William Hui-yen Hsu from National Dong Hwa University gave a guest lecture at the Finnish China Law Center. The topic of his presentation was ‘The judicial implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in Taiwan – observations on the decisions of the two Supreme Courts.’
Professor Hsu began with a short introduction to Taiwan and its effort to promote and enforce several international human rights treaties. Despite having been a non- member of the United Nations (UN) since 1971, Taiwan retains a strong will to contribute to international society. It has attempted to internalize many human rights standards as envisaged in the human rights treaties endorsed by the UN through ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
He added that nevertheless, Taiwan’s instrument of ratification was rejected by the UN Secretary-General and thus, was never a formal member of the ICESCR. The ICESCR became binding on Taiwan by means of unilateral declarations made by the President and the Government. To prevent any misunderstanding regarding the bindingness of the ICESCR on Taiwan, the Parliament passed legislation which incorporated the content of the covenant into Taiwan’s domestic law.
Professor Hsu observed that Taiwanese domestic courts have increasingly used the ICESCR as tool for implementing and enhancing domestic law, and confirming the legality of administrative acts. Training is developed for judges and lawyers to deepen their understanding of the covenant. From 2009 to 2019, the ICESCR has been invoked in 94 civil, criminal and administrative cases before the Supreme Courts, primarily regarding the right to adequate standard of living under Article 11 (invoked 32 times), family rights provided by Article 10 (invoked 15 times), right to work stipulated in Article 6 (invoked 11 times), and cultural rights under Art 15 (invoked 10 times). In 30 of these cases, the Courts have positively applied the covenant. The Professor concluded his presentation with an overview of the landmark 2019 Asia Cement Company case where Article 15 of the ICESCR and Article 17 of the ICCPR have been called upon to give enhancement to the provisions of the Indigenous People Basic Law.
Global warming and climate change is a topic that we see and hear about on a regular basis. When discussing climate change, it is impossible not to mention China. Sanna Kopra is a post-doctoral researcher in the Arctic Centre located in the University of Lapland and a visiting scholar in the Aleksanteri Institute located in the University of Helsinki and she has conducted extensive research into China in relation to climate change. Before examining her current activities in more detail, let’s revise her impressive academic history in the field of China.
Sanna has been interested in China for a lengthy period. Her interest was first sparked during her undergraduate studies, when she minored in Asian studies through the Finnish University Network for Asian Studies. “China had just become the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and it protested all attempts at setting emission reductions for developing countries. I examined China’s rhetoric in international climate discussions in my undergraduate thesis and this is something that still intrigues me”, Sanna reveals.
In addition to researching and studying China, Sanna has studied Chinese both in Finland as well as in China. Originally, Sanna envisioned taking advantage of her Chinese skills in her studies, but when her research developed and became more theoretical, there was no immediate need to utilize materials in Chinese. “For that reason, my Chinese skills have become more passive. In terms of my research, this is fine, as I’m interested in China’s role in international politics rather than China’s domestic policies”, Sanna observes.
Sanna has undeniably been active in her China studies. She obtained her doctoral degree in 2016. Her doctoral dissertation focused on China and the International Practice of Climate Responsibility. In addition to being a board member at the Finnish Peace Research Association, she is also a board member at the Nordic Association for China Studies.
All of her hard work in researching China and climate responsibility has certainly paid off. She won the International Studies Association English School Section’s Outstanding Research Paper Award last spring in the Junior Scholar category for her paper on ‘China and International Climate Responsibility: Agency and Institutional Change.’ Sanna divulges: “Barry Buzan, one of the gurus in the field, commented on the paper: ‘well done, read more, and carry on’. This alone was very reassuring for a young researcher like myself, but the award was the icing on the cake!”
“Environmental responsibility is a meaningful way for China to define great power responsibility, and thereby legitimize itself as a great power. Although China has several domestic reasons to control climate change, Beijing is also unwilling to sacrifice its economic interests for the environmental good. This is why the European Union has a significant role – with ambitious climate politics the EU can encourage China to take even bigger responsibility”, Sanna discloses.
The withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement, and people’s increasing interest in the environment and sustainable development in general, underline the fact that Sanna’s book concentrates on an exceedingly current topic. Sanna flashes that she could even consider writing another book one day, but about China’s Arctic politics.
Indeed, several countries are interested in the Arctic and their resources, and China is no exception. One indication of China’s interest in the region is China receiving an observer status in the Arctic Council. This means that even though China has no voting rights, it can now participate in the Arctic Council as an observer country. Furthermore, the Arctic is “an important region for environmental sciences and China is interested in knowing how Arctic climate change can influence China in relation to food safety and weather phenomena, to name a few”, Sanna explains.
The Academy of Finland recently awarded Sanna with a three-year grant for her research on the rise of China and the normative transformation in the Arctic region in spring 2018. She is currently examining how the rise of China is shaping the processes in which notions of responsibility are defined, allocated and operationalized in the Arctic.
“While China’s Arctic interests have been studied a great deal, most of that research has failed to consider which values and norms actually guide China’s Arctic activities, or how China’s growing role in the area challenges the already existing norms and practices in the Arctic areas”, Sanna clarifies. This is what her current research delves into.
When asked about her 2018 highlights, her response is immediate: publishing her first book and receiving a grant from the Academy of Finland. 2019 has also started memorably, as she is spending the first couple of months on a research exchange at the University of Tromsø in Norway. “I hope to learn a lot about Arctic politics and I look forward to meeting new people. I also wish to see amazing scenery – despite the polar night!”
The Finnish Center of Chinese Law and Chinese Legal Culture is pleased to announce the publication of the Report on its First Four Years (2013-2016).
The Report contains detailed information about the Center’s objectives and successes and the China law-related activities of its 10 member institutions.
Questions or comments about the Report are encouraged. Please direct them to Stuart Mooney, Coordinator of the Finnish China Law Center, at stuart.mooney (at) helsinki.fi.
The book, edited by University of Helsinki scholars Professor Kimmo Nuotio and Doctoral Candidate Kangle Zhang, is an international collaboration with Chinese scholars.
Professor Shan Wenhua, Dean of the School of Law and founding Director of the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, also co-edited the publication.
The edited volume of 12 chapters provides normative readings on China’s foreign affairs ‘master plan’ and signature policy of Chinese President Xi Jinping, the ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative.
‘The book focuses on aspects of the so-called ‘New Silk Road’ Initiative that we thought deserved more attention, such as issues relating to culture and legal philosophy, environmental law and protection, social responsibility, and the rule of law, judiciary and the role of lawyers’, Professor Nuotio says.
‘The Finnish China Law Center and the Faculty of Law of the University of Helsinki were pleased to organize and host this annual event’, said Professor Ulla Liukkunen, Director of the Finnish China Law Center.
‘The Center is proud to contribute to an important academic and social discussion within the Nordic region about the role and significance of law in China, and China’s increasing involvement in global affairs’, Professor Liukkunen said.
For Professor Liukkunen, the strength of Nordic China Law Week 2018 lay in the breadth and relevance of themes covered, the wide appeal of events to both the public and private sectors, and the involvement of scholars and participants from China, the Nordic region and other countries.
‘That the events during the Week were so well-attended testifies to the fact that Nordic interest in Chinese law and the Chinese legal system continues to grow’, Professor Liukkunen said.
‘I was particularly pleased at the diversity of participants during the Week. While the focus was primarily scholarly and academic, the organizers were careful to balance law, theory and concrete practice. This was important, including because of the Nordic business community’s deepening engagement with China’.
‘As Nordic China Law Week 2018 was organized to take account of both academic and practical perspectives, its events attracted participants not just from Nordic and Chinese academia, but also from legal practice, the Finnish corporate community – including entrepreneurs from Finland’s thriving startup scene, which is increasingly engaging with China – as well as participants from NGOs, international organizations, the media and the diplomatic community’.
‘For example, over 10 nationalities were represented among the more than 80 registered participants in the China Law Research Workshop. Startup founders, ambassadors, students, Finnish government representatives, leading Nordic scholars and representatives of multinational corporations discussed how to research and apply Chinese law, including the practicalities of doing field work and conducting business in China’, Professor Liukkunen said.
The Finnish China Law Center is thankful for the support provided by the University of Helsinki, one of the Center’s 10 member institutions.
‘The Center is grateful to Professor Jukka Kola, Rector of the University of Helsinki, for his support of Nordic China Law Week 2018, including through holding a Rector’s Reception after one of the Week’s flagship events, the China Law Research Workshop, hosted by the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Pia Letto-Vanamo’.
More information about the Week, including media inquiries, can be directed to the Coordinator of the Center, Stuart Mooney, on stuart.mooney (at) helsinki.fi.
As was the case with the first Workshop, the event was attended by a diverse range of people. The over 80 registered attendees of more than 10 nationalities included university scholars, think tank researchers, diplomats, students, lawyers, those working in business (ranging from large multinational corporations to startups), entrepreneurs and government representatives.
In what proved to be a full and engaging program, presentations were given by leading scholars based in the Nordic region, including Professor Ditlev Tamm of the University of Copenhagen who spoke on the topic ‘Nordic Reflections on Chinese Culture, the Rule of Law and Judicial Reform with Chinese Characteristics.’
In addition, three professors based in top-tier Chinese law schools traveled to Helsinki to contribute to the Workshop.
Professor Julie Yu-Wen Chen, Professor of Chinese Studies and Director of Confucius Institute at the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki, discussed the relationship between culture and research involving contemporary China.
Professor Matti Nojonen (University of Lapland), Deputy Chair of the Finnish China Law Center, drew upon his experience in China and ongoing research when talking about the ‘Intersections of Economics, Business and the Law in China: Implications for Legal Research’.
Another well-received presentation at the Workshop was given by Post-doctoral Researcher Dr Yihong Zhang (University of Helsinki), who drew upon her academic background and experience as a corporate lawyer in China when speaking on the China’s Company law regime.
The Workshop ended with Rector’s Reception hosted by Dean Letto-Vanamo, which provided an excellent opportunity for speakers and participants to network and have in-depth discussions about the themes covered during the Workshop.
On 18 April 2018, the Finnish China Law Center and the University of Helsinki, one of the Center’s 10 member institutions, hosted a guest lecture by Assistant Professor Yan Tian of the Peking University School of Law on ‘How Important is China’s Constitution in the Chinese Legal System?’
Among other things, these recent constitutional changes deleted limits on the terms of presidency, enshrined Xi Jinping’s ‘New Era Socialist Theory with Chinese Characteristics’, provided that the Communist Party of China’s leadership is ‘the most fundamental feature of socialism’, and endorsed disciplinary inspection bodies under the auspice of the National Supervisory Commission (NSC) as official state organs. (The NSC and its local commissions will operate alongside existing administrative, executive and judicial departments. The NSC was officially inaugurated on 23 March 2018).
Assistant Professor Yan shared three Chinese constitutional law prospects. First, constitutionally-based judicial review would likely not be feasible. Second, legislative review of the legality of administrative regulations may be much more robust. But such review has nothing to do with China’s constitution. Third, Chinese citizens might employ ‘constitutional discourse’ much more than previously.
But two main uncertainties remain, Assistant Professor Yan said. First: Will the NPC interpret and implement China’s constitution, and if so, how? Second: Will the Chinese state tolerate constitutional discourse, especially when such a discourse may be framed against the state?
Following his lecture was a robust discussion among participants on the implications for Chinese law and legal theory of the recent constitutional changes, prospects for constitutionalism in China, and a broader discussion of other developments in the Chinese political/legal system.
Assistant Professor Yan also presented at the second China Law Research Workshop organized by the Finnish China Law Center on 19 April 2018. The Workshop was one of many events held during Nordic China Law Week 2018 (17 – 23 April), including:
To mark the start of Nordic China Law Week 2018, on 17 April 2018 the Finnish China Law Center and Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki hosted a seminar on the theme ‘Trade Governance of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Economic Logic and Institutional Arrangements’.
Professor Cheng’s keynote presentation addressed issues including the economic logic of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) initiative, value choices of its trade governance and the OBOR Initiative’s institutional and legal arrangements.
‘After assuming office, President Xi Jinping emphasized the value of global governance research’, Professor Cheng said.
‘Since the proposal and implementation of OBOR, China has introduced a number of new terms associated with global governance, such as ‘connectivity’ and ‘three communities of common destiny’. Collectively, these terms form China’s unique ideology on global governance’.
Professor Cheng said that OBOR is the largest regional cooperation initiative ever, covering Asia, Europe, and Africa.
‘At one end is the active East Asian economic circle, and at the other is the developed European economic circle, collectively involving over 60 countries, 60% of the global population, and a third of the world’s gross domestic product’.
Professor Cheng said that OBOR ‘respects the existing rules and frameworks of the multilateral system and has not been established to disrupt this system’.
‘On the contrary, China remains one of the strongest supporters of the existing multilateral system’.
At the same time, Professor Cheng argued that ‘based on the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China should establish OBOR trade governance theories that supplement, subdue, and innovate existing multilateral trade governance theories’.
‘The advancement and progress of OBOR should perpetually abide by WTO rules and accept the constraints established by the WTO’, Professor Cheng emphasized.
Professor Cheng concluded by noting that OBOR is a national trade strategy and does not contain mandatory laws.
‘Therefore, the existing rules of the WTO provide institutional support for OBOR’.
In his remarks, seminar moderator Dr Guilherme Vasconcelos Vilaça of the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki thanked Professor Cheng for speaking during the opening of Nordic China Law Week 2018, summarized the core aspects of Professor Cheng’s address and challenged several of the arguments she advanced during her talk.
A lively discussion ensued between Professor Cheng, Dr Vilaça and seminar participants.