By Susan Finder
Zhang Jun has been the president of the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (SPC) since March 2023, and his priorities and policy preferences are starting to come into focus. What do we know about Zhang, and where is he likely to take the SPC?
Zhang, 67, has had a long career in China’s post-Cultural Revolution legal system, starting as an SPC clerk in 1985. He was promoted to a judge and then to more senior roles. He also has hands-on experience working in many of the most important institutions related to the SPC, including the Ministry of Justice, the Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection of the Chinese Communist Party (the Party), and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP). He has spent decades involved in legal policy, particularly criminal law-related policy.
Court insiders with historical memories concerning the SPC’s foreign (域外) interactions on judicial reform issues recall Zhang’s interest in learning how other legal systems approach similar problems. So it can be assumed that in addition to a deep understanding of how the Chinese legal system operates and its many challenges, he likely has more than a little knowledge of foreign legal institutions. He knows well the Party leadership’s vision for the role of legal institutions, including the courts, and the gap between the vision and reality.
Chinese judges at all four levels of the Chinese court system with whom I have been in touch shared this assessment of Zhang: he is pragmatic (务实).
Chinese judges at all four levels of the Chinese court system with whom I have been in touch shared this assessment of Zhang: he is pragmatic (务实). All have noticed changes in judicial policy since he took office. Below are five significant new directions for judicial policy, based on my early observations.
First and most importantly, Zhang has used the thematic education campaign (主题教育), launched in April by the Party leadership to study and implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, for substantive as well as political purposes. As part of this campaign, Zhang required SPC divisions, offices, circuit courts, and affiliated institutions to undertake research focusing on current significant problems or issues in their area of law or responsibility and write reports proposing practical solutions. Such research might entail local court visits, document review, and other activities. One such report that was released in August 2023 attracted considerable attention in both the Chinese and foreign press: it was the report by SPC No. 4 Criminal Division on the frequent use of the charge of picking quarrels and provoking trouble (寻衅滋事). The judge who wrote the report found the charge was being overused and suggested that the SPC provide better guidance to lower courts on its correct use.
Reports prepared by other SPC departments may point to future policy changes. For example, the SPC’s data center reported that the implementation of its policies had been primarily driven by the tech staff, and the case classification system and data generated by it were not meeting the needs of its internal users, the judges. The Research Office examined issues related to the Greater Bay Area Initiative, the Administrative Division reported on the relatively large percentage of appeals and retried cases, and the Trial Supervision Division was tasked with finding a solution to cases that bounce back and forth for years between different levels of courts, repeatedly being retried and appealed. Some of these reports and suggested solutions likely will eventually lead to judicial interpretations, policy documents, and other forms of SPC guidance to lower courts.
Secondly, under Zhang’s leadership, the SPC has put noticeably more emphasis on resolving litigation-related petitioning disputes. Probably for that reason, the SPC’s Case Filing Division’s thematic education report focused on this problem. (The Case Filing Division also reported on the familiar problem of courts rejecting cases filed at year’s end because they would have a negative impact on the courts’ case closing numbers.) Although the SPC has issued additional guidance (not yet publicly available) on handling petitions, the Case Filing Division highlighted that they expect to issue further guidance on a hearing mechanism for petitioners and recommend ways to better incorporate petitioning work into judicial performance evaluations. As to why petitioning is receiving attention, it could be partly because petitioning management has become a Party function and therefore a greater obligation for the courts, as local courts must do their part to maintain social stability. Another reason could be the economy. After all, victim compensation is primarily based on reconciliation with the perpetrator, but the challenging economy means that perpetrators or their families likely have fewer assets available for victim compensation.
Third, another noticeable new policy -- perhaps more properly described as repurposed -- is that of “judicial activism (能动司法).” It does not have much to do with the way the term is used outside of China. From what I can derive from SPC media and academic articles published in SPC journals, it appears to be a flexible term that includes making litigants feel satisfied with judgments, resolving disputes at their source, issuing suggestions for other government institutions to assist in resolving underlying problems linked to disputes, and cooperating closely and effectively with other institutions in difficult areas such as bankruptcy, administrative cases, and disputes related to real estate and construction.
[T]he continuing evolution of the judicial responsibility system bears watching. … Zhang has called for strengthening supervision by judges in leadership positions over ordinary judges and by higher courts over lower-ranked courts.
I wrote last year about a trend of the SPC issuing more policy documents and hearing fewer cases, but that was before the change in SPC leadership. Although the SPC continues to issue policy documents, I have noted a clear drop in number (at least of those made public) and a clear increase in the number of so-called typical cases. These are cases decided by courts at various levels that are selected to provide guidance for judges hearing similar cases. The actual court judgments are edited for educational effect. They are a tool by which the SPC seeks to unify the judgment standards of the Chinese courts, and may relate to current procedural or substantive law, or may advance relevant Party policy. Zhang has talked about, and the SPC’s media has promoted the concept of, “handling a typical case and promoting a solution for a group.” Under Zhang, we can expect continued or greater use of typical cases.
Finally, the continuing evolution of the judicial responsibility system bears watching. This system gives bench judges autonomy in ordinary cases but charges court leaders with supervising them. Zhang has called for strengthening supervision by judges in leadership positions over ordinary judges and by higher courts over lower-ranked courts. Zhang is also seeking to revamp the judicial performance evaluation system.
The sixth five-year judicial reform plan, expected to come out early in 2024, may include some fruits of the thematic education reports. This document will set out a framework for how the SPC, under strengthened Party leadership, will modernize itself and the lower courts so the courts can work better for Chinese-style modernization. As the SPC media often say, “the people’s courts are a highly political professional institution, and a highly professional political institution” (人民法院是政治性很强的业务机关，也是业务性很强的政治机关).
* * *
Susan Finder is a distinguished scholar in residence at the Peking University School of Transnational Law, member of the international commercial expert committee of the China International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court, and author of the Supreme People’s Court Monitor. Her views should not be attributed to the SPC.
Suggested Citation:
Susan Finder, “New Directions for the Supreme People’s Court?,” USALI Perspectives, 4, No. 3, Oct. 26, 2023, https://usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/new-directions-for-the-supreme-peoples-court.
The views expressed in USALI Perspectives are those of the authors, and do not represent those of USALI or NYU.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.