Chinese Law Prof Blog

He Weifang addresses open letter to Chongqing legal community

Pretty strong stuff. Available in English and Chinese at the China Media Project web site here. He has some good rhetorical touches. Among other things, he notes the irony that the judge in Li Zhuang's first trial, who excused all seven prosecution witnesses (all of whom were in custody) from appearing and being cross-examined because they "were unwilling" (grounds that have no basis in the Criminal Procedure Law), had written his master's thesis in law school on the necessity of witnesses appearing in court.

Trying to visit Chen Guangcheng

Here's an interesting account of an attempt by Chen Yunfei, a Chengdu-based rights activist, to visit Chen Guangcheng, the blind rights activist who is supposedly out of jail and a free man. Pretty brave, considering that the most recent person to try to visit Chen, He Peirong, seems to have disappeared (same source). Thanks to blogger Siweiluozi for the translation.

Cai Dingjian (蔡定剑), 1956-2010

I am sorry to report that Professor CAI Dingjian (蔡定剑教授), Director of the Institute for Study on Constitutionalism at China University of Political Science and Law, passed away early in the morning of November 22nd. Prof. Cai was a widely respected figure both among his colleagues in China and among the foreign community of Chinese law scholars. He was also a very fine human being.

There's a web site dedicated to his life and work here: http://www.chinaelections.org/specialtopic/SpecialTopicc.aspx?sortid=1278

Below is an obituary from the South China Morning Post, and below that, a remembrance from a friend published in 新京报.

Well-respected reformist, rights advocate dies

Ng Tze-wei
Nov 23, 2010    

China lost a heavyweight fighter for legal and political reform yesterday when constitutional law professor Cai Dingjian died at the age of 54.

A gentle but firm advocate of "constitutional democracy", Cai's death stirred an outpouring of condolences from lawyers, academics, students and rights groups.

He had been battling cancer for nearly two years, during which time he continued to write and speak out passionately on a range of legal and rights issues.

Cai switched to academia in 2004 after years of serving the government and was one of the few reformists to command respect both within and outside the government.

A soldier with the People's Liberation Army during the Cultural Revolution, he joined the China University of Political Science and Law in 1979, where he began his legal studies. He continued working in the politics department upon graduation, but switched in 1986 to the National People's Congress Standing Committee, the country's highest legislative body, where he stayed for the next 17 years. He was vice-bureau-chief of the NPC Standing Committee secretariat when he left at the end of 2003.

Saying he wanted more freedom to do research, Cai returned to the university and taught administrative law. He also advocated constitutional democracy - striving to realise democracy through implementing the constitution and strengthening the law. He was director of the university's Institute for Study on Constitutionalism while also serving as a dedicated member of the Centre for People's Congress and Foreign Legislative Study at Peking University.

A model scholar, he pursued his goals through "a combination of field experience and academic rigour", many of his contemporaries said.

He wrote more than 200 research papers and often made comments in the media, with emphasis on the election and People's Congress systems, raising governance and state budget transparency, and, more recently, fighting discrimination.

Even when he worked for the NPC, he advanced rational arguments on why and how democracy should be realised in China. In 2003 he published a research paper arguing against the contention that electoral democracy would not work because most of the citizens were not educated enough.
Many believe that paper landed him in trouble and prompted his move into academia. His last book, Democracy is a Modern Lifestyle, was published in January.

Online postings and rights advocates mourned his passing. "We have lost an inspiring teacher, a respected scholar in law, a good friend for the civil community, and a public intellectual who fights for the rights of the less privileged in Chinese society," the Yirenping Centre, an anti-discrimination legal aid group, said.

＊＊＊＊＊

我们需要什么样的知识分子？
2010-11-23 新京报  

■ 视点

蔡定剑教授是一位坚忍不拔的建设者，是一位苦口婆心的布道者。

我的同事蔡定剑教授，昨天凌晨离开了我们，我很沉痛，网络上悼念的文章很多。一个并无任何行政头衔的学者，何以获得如此广泛的社会爱戴和尊敬？

如果让我用一句话来形容蔡定剑教授，我认为他是一位古风犹存的横议处士。我国古代把没有做官的读书人叫做“处士”，把直言不讳地纵论时政的行为称为“横议”。蔡定剑教授就是当今为数不多的横议处士。《新京报》等媒体上他有专栏。对于社会重大事件，时常看见他作为知识分子的发言和呐喊。

这些年来，有些学者得了软骨病，放弃了知识分子作为社会良知和正义守护神的责任，这些人其实在害政府而不是帮政府。就在去世前不久，他还发表了“民主是有利于社会稳定的制度”这一重要言论，对那些认为民主会带来社会不稳定的谬论予以反驳。去年冬天，在中国政法大学的一次颁奖仪式上，已知自己癌症晚期的他发表获奖感言：“我们学校有些学者，不被某些官员认同。学校领导对此要有正确的认识，要保护他们。正是这些学者为政法大学赢得声誉，对他们要从历史的角度来判断，不要短视。（大意）”他说话时的调门并不高，但我感觉这是已知自己存世不久的他，对同事的我们沉重的嘱托。

蔡定剑教授不仅是位理论家，而且是民主法治执着的践行者。他对我国的人大制度有着精深的研究，对于中国的民主和宪政历史进程有着准确的判断，对于中国的司法改革，发表过许多重要的观点。他与许多学者包括我自己有一个重要的不同点是，他不满足于对于现实政治的批评，而且执着地参与着中国民主法治的建设。他将很多精力用于法治普及与宣传，推进多处地方政改，参与制度设计，包括四川罗江县专职人大代表工作室、四川雅安党代表直选试验、上海闵行区委全委会改革……

他不像某些空头理论家，用云遮雾罩的理论，忽悠民众，营销自己。他不是厌世者，整天发泄不满，指责别人，而忘记了自己的责任；他不是革命者，从不指望民主法治可以通过激进的行动，毕其功于一役。他一再警醒社会和政府，要尽可能避免动荡的到来；他某些言论虽然有些“出格”，但一直能够比较顺利地发出，我想这和他的建设者姿态有很大关系。他看到社会的不足，同时看到社会的进步；他用言简意赅的文字，轻声细语的言谈，哺育着他的学生，提醒着他的民族。他是一位坚忍不拔的建设者，他是一位苦口婆心的布道者。

大约四月前，在一场关于政府财政公开的学术报告现场。他在主席台上时，面带微笑，完全看不出这是一位癌症晚期的病人。但报告完毕以后，他来到台下，坐在我身边，我目睹他疲惫地用手支撑着头部，闭目养神，额头上渗出细细的汗水。由于担心询问他的病情会加重他心理负担，我没有说话。但在那个夜晚，在那个会场，我真心感受到，坐在我身边这位瘦弱的同事，是民族的脊梁，是一枝明亮的蜡烛，他正在燃烧着自己生命的最后一段，滋养着学生，照耀着社会。
逝者往矣！那么，什么才是对蔡定剑教授最好的纪念？我想，就是更多知识分子像蔡老师那样扛起启蒙的使命，就是坚定不移地推进中国的民主和法治。

愿蔡老师在天之灵安息。

□何兵（学者）

Pu Zhiqiang takes on his police interrogator, and tweets it

 

 

 

 

 

See the translation (with a link to the original) here at the China Digital Times.

Wu Lihong back on the job

Here's the story from the Wall Street Journal. Some people never learn, I guess. I wish him good luck.

Chinese rights supporters issue open letter in support of Liu Xiaobo

The following letter has been issued by the signatories in support of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. English and French versions follow the Chinese version.

关于刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的声明

中国公民刘晓波获得2010年度诺贝尔和平奖，这一消息在国内和国际引起极大的反响，它是中国当代一个重大的历史事件，它也为中国和平地实现社会转型、向民主宪政迈进提供了新的契机。本着对历史负责、对中国的命运前途负责的精神，我们特发表声明如下。

一、诺贝尔和平奖委员会把本年度的奖项颁发给刘晓波，这一决定符合该奖项的宗旨和评审标准。在当代社会，和平与人权密不可分，对生命的剥夺与践踏不仅发生在战场上，也发生在一国之内的暴政与恶法实践中。国际舆论的普遍赞扬证明，将今年的和平奖授予中国人权运动的代表人物，是一个及时和正确的决定。

二、刘晓波是诺贝尔和平奖的恰当人选，他坚持以非暴力手段维护人权，以理性的态度抗议社会不公正；他以坚韧的态度争取实现民主宪政目标，而在身受迫害时摒弃仇恨心理，这一切使他无庸置疑地拥有获奖资格。刘晓波的理念和实践也为中国人在解决政治、社会冲突中的行为方式提供了典范。

三、刘晓波获奖后，各国政府、各地区、各组织领导人纷纷再次要求中国当局释放刘晓波，我们持相同的态度。我们同时呼吁，当局释放一切因为思想、宗教信仰、言论等原因而被关押的政治犯和良心犯。我们呼吁尽快启动各项程序，让刘晓波获得自由，并与夫人刘霞同行，亲自到奥斯陆领取诺贝尔和平奖。

四、在得知刘晓波获奖的消息后，各地一些公民怀着兴奋的心情以聚餐、开会、举标语、发传单等方式进行庆祝或研讨，这些行为是完全合法合理的。但警察对此类活动进行了严厉压制和干扰，一些公民被扣押、盘问、威胁、遣送原籍，甚至被拘留，一些公民被软禁在家，失去行动自由甚至同时被剥夺通讯权利，包括刘晓波先生的妻子刘霞。我们要求警方立即停止这种非法行为，立即释放被拘押公民。

五、我们呼吁，中国当局以理性和现实的态度对待刘晓波获奖一事，从国内外的热烈反应中体察、辨清世界潮流与人心所向；中国应融入普世价值以及人类文明的主流，树立积极而负责任的大国形象。我们相信，政府和领导人的任何改进与善意，都会得到人们的理解与支持，都将有效地推动中国社会向着和平方向发展。

六、我们呼吁，中国当局兑现有关政治体制改革的承诺。温家宝总理最近在一系列讲话一再表达了推动政改的强烈愿望，我们愿意参与到这一实践中。我们期待，在中华人民共和国现行宪法和中国认可的联合国宪章以及各种国际公约的框架之内，政府能够切实保障公民的各项权利，和平实现社会转型，把中国建设成一个名副其实的民主、法治国家。

                                           2010年10月14日

联署人（以签名时间为顺序，继续开放联署邮箱：freexiaoboliu@gmail.com）：

徐友渔（北京，学者）

郝建  （北京，学者）

崔卫平（北京，学者）

贾葭  （北京，专栏作家）

何方  （北京，学者）

张祖桦 (北京，宪政学者)

戴晴  （北京，学者）

资中筠（北京，学者）

沙叶新（上海，回族剧作家）

张博树（北京，学者）

周舵  （北京，学者）

夏业良（北京，学者）

于浩成（北京，学者）

王力雄（北京，作家 ）

唯色  （ 西藏，作家）

滕彪  （北京，学者）

莫之许（北京，自由撰稿人）

蒋亶文（上海，作家）

马亚莲（上海，人权捍卫者）

温克坚（杭州，自由撰稿人）

钱跃君（工学博士，德国《欧华导报》主编）

浦志强（北京，律师 被限制人身自由中）

程益中（北京，出版人）

梁文道（香港，媒体人）

李大同（北京，学者）

梁晓燕（北京，编辑）

许医农（北京，编辑）

傅国涌（杭州，学者）

丁东  （北京，学者）

艾晓明（广州，学者）

邢小群（北京，学者）

宋以敏（北京，学者）

王东成（北京，学者）

徐岱  （杭州，学者）

丘延亮 (台北，副研究员 中央研究院民族学研究所)

王康  （重庆，学者）

徐贲  （北京，学者）

邓晓芒（武汉，学者）

叶匡正（北京，诗人）

朱日坤（北京，独立电影人）

张闳  （上海，学者）

老村  （北京，作家）

周枫  （北京，学者）

蔡甘铨（香港，媒体人）

林盈志（台湾，编辑）

雷永生 (北京，学者）

杨富芳（北京，教师）

徐敬亚（海南，诗人）

王小妮（海南，诗人）

吕频  （北京，妇女权利工作者）

郑海天（北京，离休编辑）

程迺欣（北京，离休编辑）

岳建一（北京，学者）

郭于华（北京，学者）

姚大力（上海，学者）

杨伟中（台湾，媒体人）

周保松（香港，学者）

徐晓  （北京，编辑）

朱正琳（北京，学者）

郑也夫（北京，学者）

石涛  （北京，企业管理者）

朴抱一（上海，媒体人）

郑褚  （成都，媒体人）

花落去（北京，媒体人）

姚博  （北京，作家）

杜婷  （香港，媒体人）

何杨  （北京，独立纪录片制作人）

华泽  （北京，纪录片导演）

张辉  （北京，德先生研究所负责人）

野渡  （广州，作家）

游精佑（福建，工程师）

吴华英（福建，人权捍卫者）

苏雨桐（德国，媒体人）

杨海  （西安，民间学者）

黎雄兵（北京，律师）

倪玉兰（北京，维权律师）

刘巍  （北京，维权律师）

李和平（北京，律师）

金光鸿（北京，律师）

李金星（北京，律师）

唐吉田（北京，律师）

陆以诺（上海，公民 基督徒）

黄燕明 (贵州，人权捍卫者)

郑创添（广东，公民）

刘强本（北京，公民）

董继勤（北京，人权捍卫者）

周洪玉（福建，公民）

吴玉堂（福建，公民）

魏英　（福建，人权捍卫者）

卓友桂（福建，人权捍卫者）

林碧仙（福建，人权捍卫者）

李华  （北京，自由职业）

任嘉祺（北京，诗人）

张永攀（北京，由撰稿人）

王德邦（广西，人权捍卫者）

张居正（河南，人权捍卫者）

韩颖  （北京，人权捍卫者）

杨树枝（北京，人权捍卫者）

杨树萍（北京，人权捍卫者）

王炜  （山东，公民）

游豫平（福州，大学生）

王立红（哈尔滨，自由职业）

门延文（北京，市民）

王我  （北京，纪录片导演）

刘沙沙（北京，人权活动人士）

胡杰  （南京，纪录片导演）

王超  （北京，电影导演）

徐娟  （德国，媒体工作者）

唐晓渡（北京，评论家）

魏海田（内蒙古，新闻记者）

张真  （纽约，学者）

安替（北京，媒体人）

萨冲 （意大利， 工程师）

郭小林（北京 ， 诗人）

王晓鲁（北京，媒体人）



On Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Peace Prize

            The awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese citizen, has drawn strong reactions both inside and outside China.  This is a major event in modern Chinese history.  It offers the prospect of a significant new advance for Chinese society in its peaceful transition toward democracy and constitutional government.  In a spirit of  responsibility toward China’s history and the promise in its future, we the undersigned wish to make these points:

            1.   The decision of the Nobel Committee to award this year’s prize to Liu Xiaobo is in full conformity with the principles of the prize and the criteria for its bestowal.  In today’s world, peace is closely connected with human rights.  Deprivation and devastation of life happens not only on battlefields in wars between nations; it also happens within single nations when tyrannical governments employ violence and abuse law.  The praise that we have seen from around the world for the decision to award this year’s prize to a representative of China’s human rights movement shows what a wise and timely decision it was.

            2.   Liu Xiaobo is a splendid choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.  He has consistently advocated non-violence in his quest to protect human rights and has confronted social injustice by arguing from reason.  He has persevered in pursuing the goals of democracy and constitutional government and has set aside anger even toward those who persecute him.  These virtues put his qualifications for the prize beyond doubt, and his actions and convictions can, in addition, serve as models for others in how to resolve political and social conflict.

            3.  In the days since the announcement of his prize, leaders in many nations, regions, and major world organizations have called upon the Chinese authorities to release Liu Xiaobo.  We agree.  At the same time we call upon the authorities to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who are in detention for reasons such as their speech, their political views, or their religious beliefs.  We ask that legal procedures aimed at freeing Liu Xiaobo be undertaken without delay, and that Liu and his wife be permitted to travel to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

            4.  Upon hearing the news of Liu Xiaobo’s prize, citizens at several locations in China gathered at restaurants to share their excitement over food and wine and to hold discussions, display banners, and distribute notices.  Normal and healthy as these activities were, they met with harassment and repression from police.  Some of the participants were interrogated, threatened, and escorted home; others were detained; still others, including Liu Xiaobo’s wife Liu Xia, have been placed under house arrest and held incommunicado.  We call upon the police to cease these illegal actions forthwith and to immediately release the people who have been illegally detained.

            5.  We call upon the Chinese authorities to approach Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Prize with realism and reason.  They should take note of the responses to the prize inside and outside China and see in these responses the currents in world thinking as well as the underlying preferences of our fellow citizens.  China should join the mainstream of civilized humanity by embracing universal values.  Such is the only route to becoming a “great nation” that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage.  We are convinced that any signs of improvement or goodwill from the government and its leaders will be met with understanding and support from the Chinese people and will be effective in moving Chinese society in a peaceful direction. 

6.  We call upon the Chinese authorities to make good on their oft-repeated promise to reform the political system.  In a recent series of speeches, Premier Wen Jiabao has intimated a strong desire to promote political reform.  We are ready to engage actively in such an effort.  We expect our government to uphold the constitution of The People’s Republic of China as well as the Charter of the United Nations and other international agreements to which it has subscribed.  This will require it to guarantee the rights of Chinese citizens as they work to bring about peaceful transition toward a society that will be, in fact and not just in name, a democracy and a nation of laws.


Communiqué sur l’attribution du Prix Nobel de la paix à Liu Xiaobo

Le citoyen chinois Liu Xiaobo a obtenu le prix Nobel de la paix 2010. Cette nouvelle a eu un impact extraordinaire tant en Chine qu’à l’étranger. C’est un événement historique pour la Chine contemporaine, une nouvelle occasion pour elle d’effectuer une transition pacifique vers un gouvernement constitutionnel. Dans un esprit de responsabilité devant l’histoire, et devant le destin futur de la Chine, nous publions le communiqué suivant :

1)L’attribution par le comité Nobel du prix Nobel de la paix à Liu Xiaobo correspond aux objectifs et aux critères d’attribution de ce prix. Dans la société contemporaine, la paix est inséparable des droits de l’Homme, la privation de la vie et son piétinement ne se produisent pas seulement sur les champs de bataille, mais sont également causés par la mise en oeuvre de mauvaises lois et d’une politique de violence.Le concert de louange de la part de l’opinion internationale montre que l’attriution du Prix à une personnalité représentative du mouvement chinois des droits de l’homme est une décision correcte et opportune.。

2) Le choix de Liu Xiaobo pour ce prix est particulièrement juste, car il n’a cessé de défendre les droits de l’homme de manière non-violente, et a toujours adopté une position raisonnable dans sa résistance aux injustices sociales ; il a montré une grande ténacité dans son combat pour obtenir la mise en oeuvre d’un régime constitutionnel,et malgré les persécutions, il est dépourvu de toute haine, ce qui fait de lui un candidat idéal pour le Prix. Les idées et la pratique de Liu Xiaobo constitutent pour les Chinois de mode de résolution des conflits

3) Dès qu’il a obtenu le Prix, les gouvernements de tous les pays, les dirigeants de toutes les régions et de toutes sortes d’organisations n’ont cessé d’exiger des autorités chinoises qu’elles libèrent LXB, ;nous adoptons la même attitude. En même temps, nous appelons les autorités à libérer tous les prisonniers de conscience et les prisonniers politiques enfermé pour des raisons d’idéologie,d’expression ou de foi religieuse.Nous appelons à prendre au plus vite toutes les mesures pour que LXB regagne sa liberté, qu’il soit réuni à son épouse Liu Xia, et qu’il puisse se rendre en personne à Oslo recevoir le prix.

4) En apprenant la nouvelle, dans toute la Chine, des citoyens ravis ont organisé des banquets, des réunions, ont porté des banderolles, distribué des tracts pour célébrer ou discuter l’événement ; ces actions sont tout à fait légales et raisonnables. Mais les policiers ont ont réprimé ces activités, des citoyens ont été gardés à vue, interrogés,  menacés, renvoyés dans leur lieu d’origine, voire détenus, placés en résidence surveillée, privés leur liberté d’action, privés de leur droit de communiquer avec l’extérieur, comme l’épouse de LXB Liu Xia. Nous exigeons que la police mette immédiatement un terme à ces actes illégaux et libère immédiatement les citoyens détenus.

5) Nous appelons les autorités chinoises à adopter une attitude raisonnable face à l’attribution du Prix à LXB, et en observant les réactions chaleureuses en chine et à l’étranger, à se mettre en accord avec le courant mondial ; la Chine doit entrer dans le courant principal des valeurs universelles et de la civilisation de l’humanité, et établir l’image d’un grand pays positiv et responsable. Nous sommes convaincus que toute amélioration et toute bonne intention du gouvernement chinois sera accueillie par la compréhension et le soutien de tous, et poussera la société chinoise dans une direction pacifique.

6) Nous appelons les autorités chinoises à tenir leur promesse de réforme du système politique. Le premier ministre Wen Jiabao, dans un ensemble de discours, a récemment manifesté son profond désir de faire avancer la réfome politique, et nous sommes prêts à participer à ce processus. Nous souhaitons que dans le cadre de la Constitution de la République populaire de Chine, de la Charte des Nations Unies qu’il reconnaît, et des traités internationaux qu’il a signés,le gouvernement puisse garantir réellement tous les droits des citoyens, qu’il mette en oeuvre une transition sociale pacifique afin de faire de la Chine un pays démocratique, doté d’un Etat de droit digne de ce nom.

Tax case against Xu Zhiyong/OCI dismissed

Just noticed this on Xu Zhiyong's blog:

2010年8月21日下午，北京市公安局以公盟公司已缴纳罚款的理由，决定撤销公盟公司涉嫌偷税一案，发还了公司账目和扣押物品。与此同时，庄璐和许志永的取保候审解除。

公盟公司主体资格争议诉讼法院一直没有受理，直到现在还没有结果。但无论公盟公司主体资格是否存在，我们公民都将一如既往地推动公民社会的成长和建设。

感谢大家一直以来的关心和支持！！这是我们继续前进的动力，无论经历了什么困难，我们执着地坚守一个美好社会的理想。

Quick translation:

On Aug. 21, 2010, in the afternoon, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau decided to dismiss the case of suspected tax evasion against Gongmeng Company [i.e., Xu's organization, known in English as the Open Constitution Initiative] on the grounds that Gongmeng Company had paid the fine. The PSB returned the company account books as well as other confiscated materials. At the same time, the release on bail of Zhuang Lu and Xu Zhiyong was dissolved [i.e., they are free unconditionally and not just out awaiting trial].

To date, the court has not accepted Gongmeng Company's case over its disputed legal status. But whatever Gongmeng Company's legal status, we citizens will continue just as before to promote the establishment and growth of civil society.

Thanks to everyone for your constant concern and support! This is our incentive to keep going. No matter what problems we encounter, we will stubbornly maintain our ideal of a good society.

Background for those who don't know: Here's a news story from the L.A. Times about the case, which began last summer.

Robert van Gulik

Here, on the 100th anniversary of his birth, is a nice remembrance of Dutch sinologist Robert van Gulik (WSJ; subscription required), through whose Judge Dee stories many of us had our first introduction to Chinese legal history.

Gao Zhisheng reappears

Here's his interview with the Associated Press.

It is often claimed by the Chinese government - as well as some foreign observers who ought to know better - that China never responds to external pressure and that such pressure is always counterproductive. This has always seemed like obvious nonsense to me: if Chinese leaders really did have this infantile mentality, foreign governments could manipulate them to do anything. The US would send officials to press China to persecute the Dalai Lama and point more missiles at Taiwan. In reality, it's more likely that Chinese leaders, like everyone else, respond to a range of incentives of both domestic and foreign origin. Sure, they have to worry about how RMB revaluation (for example) will play domestically and can't appear to be bending to foreign pressure, but of how many national leaders is that not true?

For what it's worth, Gao Zhisheng's reappearance is a data point in this debate. It's impossible (at least for me; perhaps not for others) to imagine that he would be chatting with an AP reporter, in at least passable health, were it not for foreign pressure. Of course, better treatment for one person in response to foreign pressure is not the same as a major change in policy in response to foreign pressure. And the fact that foreign pressure sometimes works does not mean it always works. Still, it's a data point to keep in mind whenever you hear the claim that "China will never act under foreign pressure."

Peking University gives the boot to Women's Law Center

Let me quote from the South China Morning Post report:

Peking University severed ties last week with a high-profile women's rights advocacy group [the Women's Legal Research and Services Center (妇女法律研究与服务中心)] under its auspices, sending further chills through the mainland's NGO community, which fears a new era of tightened government control.

In a public notice dated March 25 on the university's website, the social sciences faculty announced it was "cancelling" four research institutes set up under its name, and that any further actions carried out by them would have nothing to do with the university.

The four institutes include three from the law department - the Women's Legal Research and Services Centre, the Public Law Research Centre and the Constitution Research Centre - and one from the media department, the Finance News Research Centre. 

(I've been holding off on blogging about this because I was hoping to get a linkable news report, but so far no newspapers in all of Westlaw's database has seen fit to report on this but the South China Morning Post, for which you have to have a subscription. Here's a synopsis of the SCMP report, which in fact contains almost every word.) As usual, the authorities have put on their "nothing to see here, folks; move along" face: according to the SCMP report, "The dean of social sciences, Cheng Yuzhui, told Beijing Youth Daily yesterday that the cancellations were just routine restructuring of the university's research institutes, removing 'some institutes that no longer suit the current trend'."

Here's a statement issued by Guo Jianmei, the Center's head, and her team in English and Chinese:

Farewell, Beida!

On 25 March, the Division of Social Sciences, Peking University, published a Notice of Cancellation of Organisations on the University’s official website. The Center for Women's Law & Legal Services was one of the four on the list. The days that followed were filled with calls of concern and support from the media, NGOs, partners, the relevant authorities, friends and persons whom we have helped. We are touched, and we are grateful!

To an entity that has been single-minded in purpose and enterprise for the last 15 years, expulsion from the Peking University family is a major and unexpected setback which affects more than just the entity itself. For the Center for Women's Law & Legal Services of Peking University is a symbol of deep significance. To the country, it is an industrious pair of hands that helps build social harmony. To the weak and the vulnerable, it is a ray of light that offers warmth and hope. To NGOs and our partners, it is a fellow comrade on the frontlines, enforcing the rule of law and advancing good for the civil society. To the people at large, it is a deliverer of social conscience and the spirit of law. And to every member of the Center, it is our common home.

As such, to those who have cared and still continue to care, I would like to say a few last words about this name that has become history:

I.     In 15 years, we have lighted up more lives than the sun has. 

Since the Center’s inception in 1995, our aim was to provide legal aid, protect women’s rights, and promote gender equality. Equity and justice were not only the Center’s tenets, but the belief and ideal espoused by every member. As the first public interest organisation in China that specialises in providing legal aid for women, we were one of the earliest private legal aid practice. While demand for legal aid among the vulnerable was high, State legal resources were scarce. The Center thus became an expedient complement that plugged gaps in the government’s legal aid services. It has since, helped more than 100,000 women victims obtain recourse to justice.

In 2004, to meet the increasingly diverse needs in women’s rights protection, the Center began providing public interest litigation services, and was soon to become an important force in public interest legal practice. Absent a public interest litigation framework, the Center set itself to legal and policy improvement and reform by working on typical cases, incorporating the protection of the individual rights of women into the overall rights of citizens, to ensure impact. The cases involved important and difficult issues as gender discrimination in the workplace, labour rights of women, sexual harassment in the workplace, violence against women, rights of female migrant workers, and rural women land rights. And by employing different approaches in legislative advocacy, the Center has expanded its beneficiary population.

Our efforts have rendered power to the law and to legal aid. A victim once told us, “the Center is like a lamp, glowing of equity and justice, exuding warmth in the cold, and shedding light on the darkness ahead. She spoke not only for the many weak and poor women, she spoke also for the meaning of our enterprise.

The Center has become a sphere of influence that motivated many later-comers. Consciously, it took on the responsibility of providing legal aid, conducting public interest litigation, organising public interest legal advocacy, and training public interest lawyers. In 2002, a legal aid collaboration group was established, so as to enable more organisations and institutions to participate in the delivery of legal aid. In 2007, the Center founded the Public Interest Lawyers’ Network for Women’s Rights, and in 2009, the name was changed to China Public Interest Lawyers’ Network. The Network currently comprises more than 300 brilliant lawyers from more than twenty provinces and cities, providing legal aid for thousands of poor and vulnerable people. I still remember the Network’s launch ceremony on 15 March 2009 at the Centennial Lecture Hall at Peking University, where leaders from authorities as the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legal Aid, Center for Legal Assistance, All-China Lawyers’ Association and the Beijing Lawyers’ Association turned up to show their support. The speech given by Professor Zhu Suli, Dean of Peking University Law Department remains vivid in my mind.

In September 2009, Ms Guo Jianmei, public interest lawyer and head of the Center founded Qian Qian Law Firm. Specialising in public interest law and public interest legal activities, and comprising professional public interest lawyers, Qian Qian has expanded its scope to benefit a broader spectrum of vulnerable persons such as the disabled, migrant workers and the aged.

15 years of innovative approaches and effective outputs have not only profited the poor and vulnerable women; the Center has also grown to become an influential and credible NGO. It has earned praises and won awards. In February 2006, in their congratulatory note to the Center’s tenth anniversary, Professor Min Weifang, the Party Secretary of Peking University, and Professor Xu Zhihong, President of Peking University, said, “the Center for Women's Law & Legal Services of Peking University has observed Peking University’s glorious tradition of patriotism, progress, democracy and scientific approach. By seeking relentlessly, developing aggressively, and improving constantly, it has achieved commendable results, contributed to the progress and advancement of women’s rights protection and legal aid delivery, and served its role in fostering harmony. Its work has won interest, support and tribute of the society and its peers, recognition and respect from women at large, and glory for Peking University!”

As Premier Wen Jiabao said, “Equity and justice glow brighter than the sun.” Indeed, equity and justice are of supreme value and significance to every individual, every country, and every nation. The Center shall be a faithful and determined perpetuator of this worthy cause.

II.    Hurdles deter us not, but spur us on.

Cancellation by Peking University was not our first setback. The Center was nearly closed down during its initial days, only to be followed by one challenge after another. Funding was a major problem, as those days, funding channels were few and funding systems unregulated. Fund shortage stymied NGO development, and was the major obstacle to the Center’s growth.

Talent is another problem, especially when the Center, as a professional organisation, was in need of well-qualified legal professionals. Attracting and retaining talent in a society of low public interest awareness and driven by utilitarianism was a huge difficulty. So were balancing ideals and the reality, dedication and compensation, and spiritual fulfilment and material satisfaction.

Our work is also hampered by a deficient legal environment, flawed enforcement systems, administrative interference, local protectionist policies, industry protectionism, even corruptive practices within the judicial system. Persistent overwork leading to physical and mental stress of the Center’s members is also a permanent problem.

Cancellation is also not the gravest difficulty we have faced. We were even threatened with physical harm. When angry villagers in that remote village let go of their tightly clasped sticks, convinced by our steady and determined gaze, we knew we could never be beaten. Because justice is what we pursue, and justice will always triumph.

Difficulty is only an excuse of the weak and the feeble. To go-getters with conviction, difficulty is impetus to move mountains. Difficulty is but snowfall before spring comes. And snow melts. Thereafter, a spring breeze will blow away, bringing forth myriad blossoms and an enchanting fragrance.

III.  Farewell, Beida! But our pursuance of equity and justice shall endure, and our belief in the rule of law shall prevail.

We have several members on our team who are Peking University graduates. They were inculcated with knowledge and intellectual depth, and nurtured with democratic sensibilities and humanistic values––the motivation for their choice of a public interest career. Cancellation was saddening to Guo Jianmei. This is not the Beida that she once knew. Guo’s resolute embarkation on a public interest career was guided by her Beida predecessors and the Beida spirit. She hopes that many will understand her sense of desolation and feeling of betrayal.

But desolation is one thing, Guo Jianmei and her team are as eager and as passionate as ever. They are convinced that legal aid and public interest work is what the people need, and what a harmonious society must have. These needs are revealed by the Center’s work during the last 15 years, spoken by the sacks of millet and sweet potatoes, and the hundreds of thank-you banners from those poor and vulnerable clients, and proven by the numerous awards that the Center has won.

The Center may have become a chapter in history, Qian Qian is for now and the future.

The Center has devoted itself to serving women’s rights, giving legal aid, and growing as an NGO. The least it has done is to have sent this message: Private legal aid organisations must and will play an indispensable role in China. Given the national circumstances, charting new frontiers, will require dedicated and valiant fighters, and they should be recognised and encouraged.

The future will be bright, and we will stick to our goal and continue on. The road may be treacherous, and the view along the way may not be always pleasant. But the meaning of life is about keeping our feet on the ground, undeterred, and making our way toward our ideals.

We have no complaint, we have no regret.

We thank every entity and every friend who cares for and who supports us. We have you, who will walk with us.

Former Center for Women's Law & Legal Services of Peking University

April 1, 2010

我们的话

 3月25日，北京大学官方网站发布了北京大学社会科学部的机构撤消公告，北京大学法学院妇女法律研究与服务中心是被撤消的四家机构之一。消息发布之后的几天以来，我们得到了媒体、各NGO、合作伙伴、相关机构、朋友们以及被我们帮助过的当事人的关心和支持，我们深为感动，深表感谢！

对于一个15年一直在不懈努力和奋斗的机构，这是一个重大的变故，而所产生的影响，也不仅仅是对机构自身，因为“北京大学法学院妇女法律研究与服务中心”不仅仅是一个机构的名称，而是一个有深刻含义的符号。对国家而言，她为社会主义和谐社会做出了积极贡献；对我们的当事人而言，她代表温暖和希望；对NGO和我们的合作伙伴而言，她是共同为中国法治和公民社会奋斗的战友；对社会公众而言，她体现了社会良心和法律精神；而对每一位中心的成员而言，她是我们共同的家。

因此，我们想对这个已成为历史的名字，想对所有关心她和我们的人说上几句。以下为我们的声明：

一、15年来，我们从事的是“比太阳还要光辉”的事业。

1995年中心成立之时起，就以厉行法律援助，维护妇女权益，推动性别平等为目标，公平和正义成为中心、也成为中心每一个成员所奉行的理念和理想。作为中国第一家专门从事妇女法律援助的公益性机构，中心是中国民间法律援助最早的实践者之一，在贫弱群体的巨大需求和政府法律援助资源不足的状况之下，中心探索的民间法律援助模式成为政府法律援助的有益补充，也让近10万权益受侵害的妇女争取到了应有的权益。2004年，为了适应妇女权益保护多元化发展的需要，中心率先开展了妇女权益领域的公益诉讼，并成为中国公益法律活动的积极推动者。在中国公益诉讼制度尚未建立的状况下，中心实践先行，将妇女个体权益的保护和整体性权益的维护相结合，以推动法律政策的改革为目标，办理了大量典型性、影响性案件，范围涉及职场性别歧视、妇女的劳动权益、职场性骚扰、针对妇女的暴力、外来女工权益、农村妇女土地权益等涉及妇女权益的重点和难点领域，并通过多种形式进行立法倡导，大大扩展了受益人群。

中心的帮助，让贫弱女性感受到了法律和法律援助的力量。一个当事人对我们说，中心就像一盏灯，让她们看到了公平和正义的光亮，让她们在寒冷中感受到温暖，让前行的路不再黑暗。她的话，表达了很多当事人的心声，也说出了我们从事这份事业的意义。

在这个过程中，中心以自身的影响力带动了很多的后来者，也在这个过程中，中心自觉承担了法律援助、公益诉讼和公益法律活动倡导者以及公益律师孵化平台的使命。2002年，中心发起成立了中国法律援助协作小组，旨在让更多的组织和机构加入法律援助的队伍，2007，年中心发起成立“妇女权益公益律师网络”，并于2009年更名为“公益律师网络”，目前已有超过300名涉及全国二十多个省市的优秀律师加入网络并为数千贫弱当事人提供法律援助。在2009年3月15日于北大百年讲堂举办的网络启动仪式上，司法部法律援助司、国家法律援助中心、全国律师协会、北京市律师协会等相关部门领导到会支持，而北大法学院朱苏力院长的祝贺讲话仍让我们记忆犹新。

2009年9月，以中心为依托，中心主任、著名公益律师郭建梅组建成立了千千律师事务所，千千所以专职公益律师专职开展公益法律活动为机构特色和发展模式，积极推动公益律师的专门化、专业化和职业化，并将法律援助和公益诉讼的关注点扩大到残疾人、农民工、老年人等更广泛的弱势群体。

15年来，由于极具创新性和卓有成效的工作，在惠泽广大贫弱女性的同时，也让中心成长为一个有影响力和公信力的NGO，获得了广泛的赞誉和诸多的荣誉，并得到了北京大学的高度赞誉和肯定。2006年2月，时任北大书记的闵维方先生和北大校长的许智宏先生在祝贺中心成立10周年的贺信中写道：“妇女法律研究与服务中心秉承北大爱国、进步、民主、科学的光荣传统，积极探索、勇于开拓、不断进取，取得了骄人成绩，为推动中国妇女权益保护和法律援助事业的进步和发展做出了积极贡献，为构建和谐社会发挥了应有作用，得到了社会各界以及国内外同行的关注、支持和赞誉，获得了广大妇女的认可与尊重，为北大赢得了荣誉！”

温家宝总理说过“公平正义比太阳还要光辉”，这句话体现了公平和正义对于每一个人、对于一个国家和民族至高无尚的价值和意义。中心就是这项光辉事业积极的、坚定的践行者。

二、困难，给我们的不是气馁，而是更加坚定的信念。

被撤消，并不是我们面临的第一个困难，只是无数个困难之后的又一个而已。中心在成立之初就险些夭折，之后，一系列的困难和挑战接踵而至。首先是经费问题。中国尚未建立起较为顺畅和规范化的NGO筹资体系和制度，经费的制约成为NGO发展的瓶颈，也是中心发展过程中面临的重要困难；而人才问题也一直是困扰NGO发展的重大障碍，特别是中心这样一个需要较高法律专业知识和资质的专业性机构，如何在社会公益意识不强，趋功逐利心态过强的环境下吸引并留住人才，如何解决理想与现实、奉献与待遇、精神与物质的冲突和矛盾一直是中心的一大难题；还有相关法律体系、执法环境的不完善，行政干预司法和地方保护、行业保护的影响，甚至是司法中的腐败现象，都给中心工作带来了很多的困难，长期超强度的工作负荷也让中心成员身心压力极大，这种透支状态在繁重的工作压力下变成一个难以缓解的问题。

被撤消，也并不是我们遇到最大的困难，我们甚至受到过生命的危胁。在那个偏避的乡村，不懂法的村民在我们坚定的目光下不由自主地扔掉手里的棍棒时，我们就明白我们是不可战胜的，因为我们从事的是正义的事业，而正义是不可战胜的。

困难，只是怯懦者的挡箭牌，而对有着坚定信念的前行者来说，困难是另一种动力，是春前的一场雪，雪总是要化的，而满山的红绿一定会随着春风无可阻挡地绽放!

三、别了，北大!不别的是我们对公平和正义永远的追求，对中国法治坚定不移的信念。

中心好几位专职成员都毕业于北大。未名湖给了他们知识和精神的滋养，北大的民主和人文情怀给了他们选择公益之路最初的精神动力。这也是面对被撤消，郭建梅为什么会说感到悲凉。这不是她想像中的北大。是依照北大先辈们和北大精神的指引，她义无反顾地走上公益之路。因此，她的悲凉，让人们感到更加的悲情和震撼。

但是，悲凉的郭建梅和她的团队心中依然热血沸腾，激情燃烧，因为他们坚信，法律援助和公益法律事业是民众的需要，是和谐社会的需要，并为15年中心的实践所证明，为贫弱当事人送给中心的小米、红薯和几百面锦旗所体现，为中心获得的各类奖项所诠释。

更何况，中心虽撤，而千千所犹在。

中心在妇女权益、法律援助和NGO三个领域都做出了自己的贡献，她至少给人以这样的启示：民间法律援助机构的生存在中国不仅需要，而且将发挥不可或缺的积极作用；在现实的中国，要开创一项前瞻性的事业，需要一批为之奋斗和奉献的勇士，并给予认可和激励。

面对未来的灿烂之霞，我们将继续行路。尽管前路仍不平坦，风景也并非都是绿水青山，但又有什么呢，生命的意义，在于脚踏实地的行进，在于百折不回的勇气，在于我们朝着自己的理想向前走的每一步。

我们无怨无悔。

再次感谢所有关心和支持我们的机构和朋友，在路上，我们同行。

原北京大学法学院妇女法律研究与服务中心

2010年4月1日

Latest round in the Cohen birthday events: Hawaii, March 16

Earlier this month the University of Hawaii Law School put on a program in honor of Jerome Cohen's upcoming 80th birthday. Here are links to a video recording and a program description.

Jiang Ping: "China's Rule of Law Is in Full Retreat"

Here's a rough translation of a remarkable recent speech by Jiang Ping. The translator has declined credit.

China's Rule of Law is in Full Retreat
February 21, 2010

Attending today's lunch and hearing so much praise makes me feel very uneasy.   I don't know how many times I have celebrated my birthday this year, and here comes Sun Guodong, hosting yet another event.

The first celebration was with fellow scholars and the second with my family, but I felt like something was missing.  There was no event with lawyers, or rather we might say some lawyers wanted to have a birthday celebration for me but didn't have a chance.  I think today's event might settle that.  However, in listening to these words of praise my ears have pricked up, as I must say you have expressed aspirations I have definitely never fulfilled.  Perhaps it was just the circumstances around me.  Because today the situation for the rule of law in China is grim.  So in these circumstances perhaps your expectations of me are even higher.  But I think I have not been able to do enough.

Strictly speaking, in the 30 years of reform what I did was call for private rights.  I chose civil law and private rights because those areas were weak in China, or rather in a China with such strong public powers, private rights were always in a weak position.  Private rights include the rights of private enterprise, of private property, and perhaps even broader personal rights.

Today, I will just mention three issues, but these are not the same three you all just suggested.  The first private right I will mention is the Shanxi coal mine problem [private coal miners were encouraged to invest then their mines were taken by the state at low or no compensation].  The Shanxi coal miners demonstrate a violation of the rights of private property and private enterprise, a brazen violation of constitutional guarantees.

The second is the Li Zhuang case [the defense lawyer convicted of inciting false testimony in the Chongqing mafia crackdown].  When Wu Xiaoji brought over Li's defense lawyer to talk to me, we chatted for a long time about what happened in court that day and the entire procedural history of the case.  After hearing about it, I was furious.  No matter what you think about it, from the most basic level, procedural justice was violated.  The evidence was not brought out and many of the witnesses did not appear in court.  From the perspective of evidence, that case had serious problems.

The third is the Liu Xiaobo case.  When I heard about the Liu Xiaobo verdict, I felt it was a crime of speech -- a very dangerous thing.  China has a long tradition of criminalizing speech, and if we let that tradition continue today, and if those with a sense of justice can't express their views, then our problems are just too serious.  Or perhaps, for those of us engaged in the rule of law, if even we take a hands-off approach -- if there is not a single voice of justice among us -- then I think that is really dangerous.

So, looking at China's current situation, I think we are in a period where the rule of law is in retreat.  Or perhaps, building the rule of law, judicial reform, and political reform are all moving backwards.  This is my first thought.

My second thought: In the last two books I published, I used the term "cry out" in the title.  The first book was called "What I can do is cry out."  I recently published a book that I edited by hand, putting together some of my prior work in a careful compilation that I called "Private Rights Cry Out."  This latest is part of a series of 100 works of top people in the humanities; in that series I am the only one from the legal field.  Why did I choose the word "cry out," and why in the last two years?  Of course, I have been enlightened by Lu Xun's example, but it is not only that.  I think that choosing "cry out" is important because the situation has become more oppressive.  That is to say the environment outside has become more and more difficult.  In those circumstances, one must "cry out."  No matter what words you choose, when the circumstances are urgent, you must call out with your voice.

I also use "cry out" to to be clear about another issue: we must both dare to fight and be good at fighting.  Given the conditions for building the rule of law today, these two things need to be merged.  This is something I have pondered a long time, and it is very difficult.  Perhaps you are good at fighting but you don't dare stand up.  Or you dare to fight, but lose your sense of proportion.  Because the basic essence of the problem in China is problem of the Party's leadership, the foundation of the political system.  If the political system does not reform, then nothing else can reform.  If the political system does not reform, then your rule of law, your judicial reform, your anything-else will not be much of an achievement.  In those circumstances, it is easy for you to "cross the line," to step into forbidden territory. So in China's circumstances how to put those two things together -- to both dare to fight and be good at fighting -- this is a formidable task.

I remember that Ji Weidong once wrote about this problem, and this has given me something to think about.  He wrote: How is it that someone like Jiang Ping can exist in China's current political conditions, how is that he does not "cross the line" too far?  Of course, the leadership values you, but they are also conscious that they need to be careful about you.  I could be regarded as "inside the line" and also be regarded as "outside the line."  That position is actually very difficult.  I think that at this moment we should carefully position ourselves as in between of those "inside the line" and those "outside the line", this way everything will be a bit better.

My third thought is that overall I am still an optimist.  In the past, I used to love to say that China's rule of law was two steps forward, one step back.  I still haven't changed that view today.  Because in terms of the protection of private rights, today's China is vastly improved over the past.  Needless to say, this is the case in the last thirty years, or even more needless to say it is the case compared to the decade of the Cultural Revolution.  In the 30 years of reform, with the "baptism" of the Property Law, rights consciousness about private rights protection has been enormously improved.  The Chengdu self-immolation case, or other cases, already demonstrate that people's sense of private rights have woken up.  Add the function of law to the awakening sense of rights consciousness and that is something that can be extremely powerful.

Twenty years ago, when we passed the Administrative Litigation Law, it was hard to imagine that such a law could help protect private rights.  But today, whether by litigation or other methods, protecting your own rights is something we can say everyone understands.  Everyone understands that their rights cannot be infringed.  Perhaps in some places the projection of private rights is overlooked, or in some places it is abused.  But no matter what, today when we stress protecting private rights, we want to stress two things: first, ordinary personal rights must be protected, but we also must pay attention to not abusing power.  If we grasp this, everything will be fine.

So today I would like to thank everyone here.  So many of you are still here.  Some of the scholars have left, but you lawyers have persisted to the end.  This also helps explain an important issue, as Pu Zhiqiang just put it as well.  Like our lawyers today, more and more people are genuinely interested in the fate of China's rule of law.  Lawyers definitely don't only want to make money; many lawyers have come to understand and think about our country's destiny, the future of the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.  That way of thinking, and that theme, has already taken root in our heads.

I think this is very heartening phenomenon.  I believe that China certainly has a bright future.  The world trends are unmistakable: whether human rights, democracy, or freedom, these are irresistible trends.  All the world's people are moving forward.  That we are moving backward is only temporary.  Or perhaps, for the time that some people reign, they can do as they please.  But after he steps down, he has no status.  I think this is the truth.

Some comments on the Li Zhuang case

I was recently invited to write some comments on the Li Zhuang case by a Chinese journal. But then they told me that the Central Propaganda Department had issued a circular forbidding publication of material on the case. Since I can't bear to have all that work go for nothing, here's the comment as it would have been published:

美国教授眼中的李庄案
 
郭丹青（Donald Clarke）/文
 
李庄案涉及到有名的中国刑法第306条。对于李庄究竟是否做了伪证或者妨害作证，本人没有参加庭审过程，不敢断然定案。但我认为有几个问题值得怀疑。 

首先，关于实体问题，律师会见被关押在看守所的客户时，律师和客户的交往都会受监督，李庄对此肯定是了解的。在受监督的情况下，教唆客户做假证的难度相当大。根据检察院的控诉，李庄“走到铁窗边靠近他小声地教”龚刚模怎么样做。在场的看守所人员怎么会没有注意到？ 

第二，关于程序问题。根据刑法第306条的规定，伪造证据必须是在刑事诉讼中发生的。该罪名的危害在于妨碍审理者根据事实定案。但是，李庄案中，李庄的客户（当事人）龚刚模案审判还没有开始，假证（如果有的话）还没来得及举，律师就已经被抓了。从法律技术上来说，罪名能否成立很成问题。法院没有接受上述辩护意见，理由是该罪行是行为犯而不是结果犯。但这样分析解决不了关键问题，即法律所禁止的行为必须在什么情况下发生？据我了解，以往第306条的案件追究的都是在审理过程当中（在法庭里）发生的行为，从这个意义上说，李庄案看起来是个理论突破。 

另外，不能忽视刑法第306条的有关背景。根据我所看到的研究资料，从1997年到2002年，有100多个中国律师被指控违反第306条，但最后90%都没有被判刑。这个就很能说明问题。根据前任最高人民法院院长肖杨在2006年的讲话，在中国的刑事诉讼中，一般99%以上的被告人最后都会被判有罪，最后被判无罪的是0.66%。如果我们发现有一个罪名很例外，被指控者多数或者被判无罪，或者因指控不当而撤诉，那么就足以怀疑，原本那个指控是没有多少根据的；也就是说，实际上这个条款在很多时候被警方和公诉方滥用了。此外，很多人都指出过，刑法第306条只是针对辩护方，没有相应同等地针对警方和检方，如果他们伪造证据怎么办？ 

美国的伪证罪和中国刑法306条规定不同，不限于律师，任何人都可能构成伪证罪。其实，据我了解，因制造伪证或者隐瞒证据而受到处罚的，是警察和公诉方占压倒性多数，涉及辩护律师的案件则微乎其微，原因如下。第一，被告很少当证人，所以被告很少有机会在法庭里撒谎，律师从而没有教唆撒谎的可能。第二，司法制度所追求的社会价值是多元的甚至相互冲突的。发现案件的真实情况只不过是其中之一。大家都知道，虽然证人如果开口的话必须说真话，但宪法第五修正案规定，一个人可以拒绝陈述不利于自己的事情，保持沉默。这明明与发现案情的真实情况是有冲突的。律师与客户之间的关系也是受司法制度的保护。所以，给律师的空间是比较大的，只有最突出、最明显、最严重的违法行为才会被追究。既然不可能以百分之百的准确率保证既不冤枉一个好人又不放纵一个坏人，则美国的制度选择是以接受一些边缘性的行为为代价买来对律师与客户间关系的保护。如果中国在制度上不这么重视律师与客户之间的关系，那么很自然就不愿意为保护这种关系而付出任何代价。 

还有另外一个涉及证人出庭的问题。一审时一个证人都没有出庭，这很明显地违反了中国刑诉法的强制性规定。中国刑诉法第47条说得清清楚楚，“证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人双方讯问、质证，听取各方证人的证言并且经过查实以后，才能作为定案的根据。”首先应该明确一点：很多国家有类似的看起来很硬性的规定，但也容许例外存在。比如按美国宪法，任何一个被告人有权面对不利于他的证人。虽然有例外（比如有时候已经死去的证人的话可以作为证据），但例外的情况是很有限的。特别是如果证人在公诉方的控制下，那么就没有理由不让他出庭。比如李庄案一审时龚刚模为什么不出庭？他是最重要的证人，而且在控方的控制之下，他不出庭非常奇怪。 

如果中国法律要规定一些例外情况，这在原则上无可非议。问题是，刑诉法连原则性的例外情况都没有规定。法院拿出了刑诉法第157条来反驳辩护方对证人没有出庭的意见。虽然该条确实对证人不出庭有所考虑，但它并没有规定在什么情况下可以接受没有出庭的证人的证据。那么，在目前的情况下，似乎检察院可以自行决定要不要让证人出庭，这样刑诉法第47条完全失去了意义，成为可有可无的东西。我认为这不可能符合立法者（人民代表大会）的原意。“必须”毕竟是“必须”吧。 

可能是因为见惯不怪吧，中国律师以及法学界对证人不出庭的问题好像采取了无可奈何的态度。很多观察家把这个问题当作一个很遗憾的事情，但强烈指出它的明显违法性的却不多。 

二审中有证人出庭了，但有证人拒绝回答辩护方发问，而且法官允许证人不回答问题。这个也说明程序有问题。中国的法律规定，凡是知道案件情况的人，都有作证的义务。法律并没有规定证人方便开口就开，不方便就可以不开。 

李庄案中，有说法说有一个辩诉协议，但检方并未承认。 

美国的辩诉交易是有两方面的。一方面是关于最后的控诉是什么，例如有几项指控，有的指控证明起来难度很大，有的证明难度较小，公诉方和辩护方可以就此进行有约束力的谈判。比如杀人案中，但到底是预谋还是过失，公诉方觉得很难证明有预谋，可以选择只指控过失杀人，而辩护方也可以对此认罪，接受公诉方的指控。这个谈判跟法官没关系，法官不能决定指控是什么。这个协议是控辩双方同意的，公诉方不能违背。
另外一方面是量刑问题。既然辩护方认罪，到底如何判刑，这是法官来控制的，一般来说，公诉方和辩护方会同意一个量刑幅度，比如说，辩护方提出同意判刑三年到六年，公诉方也说我们不要求六年以上。法官一般来说会考虑双方的建议，但不受此约束。美国没有政法系统，也没有政法委同时领导公检法的工作。法院完全独立于公诉方，连一个共同的上级都没有，所以即使公诉方想约束法院还是约束不了。中国的情况就不一样。虽然法院名义上独立于检察院，但实际上两个都在地方政法委的领导下，如果政法委愿意出面定案，检察院和法院都没有办法说“不”。总之，地方党政领导作出的承诺应该是有能力履行的，如果说，“对不起，我们控制不了法院，”那就没有说服力。 

如果的确有这么一个协议的话，它是否类似于美国的辩诉交易？我认为不太像。美国辩诉交易的背景是，刑事案件太多了（美国的人均关押率居世界最高），要节省司法资源。如果没有辩诉交易，如果每一个刑事案件都要经过审判过程，那是完全行不通的，美国的刑事审判制度就运转不了。这样，公诉方会对自己认为不太重要的案件跟辩护方（被告人和律师）达成协议，公诉方降低指控，被告人认罪，那样可以避免审判过程对双方的风险。 

李庄案的协议就不太一样。首先，它不是为了节省司法资源。这个案件对检察院来说应该算一宗很重要的案件，值得花司法资源来震慑其他的律师不要做假证（如果认为李庄是无辜的，那么就是为了震慑其他律师不要为被告人提供辩护）。第二，检察院并没有什么需要避免的风险。所以，这样的协议只能是为了让政府下台阶。 
 
作者为美国乔治华盛顿大学法学院教授
 

Chinese law events honoring Jerome Cohen

As Prof. Cohen, one of the founders of Chinese law studies in the United States, will be celebrating his 80th birthday this July 1st, the Chinese law community has been planning various events in his honor. Most recently, on Feb. 19th the George Washington University Law School and Georgetown University Law Center jointly put on an afternoon conference in Washington, DC. The program is here; videos of the proceedings will be available shortly.

Later this month, the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii will be holding a series of events from March 15th through 18th. Here are two informational flyers: an overview and a panel discussion program. The panel discussion will be recorded and made available on line.

Feng Zhenghu returns home

Feng Zhenghu, the Chinese human rights activist who camped out at Narita Airport in Tokyo for over three months to protest the refusal of Chinese authorities to allow him back to China, has returned to Shanghai. Here's the Washington Post story. In a moment of no doubt unintended irony, the mayor of Shanghai, Han Zheng, is said to have commented apropos of Feng's case that all those entering the country had to abide by Chinese laws and regulations. Apparently those guarding the entry gates, however, do not; no legal basis for refusing him entry was ever to my knowledge proffered by the government. If readers can think of any, please let me know in the comments.

The Li Zhuang case and the princelings

John Garnaut has a fascinating piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on the Li Zhuang case and its relation to the princeling community. The factual background behind the article is quoted below; click here for the rest of the story.

The man who must have authorised Li's arrest is Bo Xilai, the only Politburo member who can comfortably wear epithets such as colourful, mercurial or maverick. The Communist Party boss of the central-west city of Chongqing has captivated the nation with a brave but risky war against the city's organised crime.

Bo got to where he is partly because he is the son of Bo Yibo, one of China's "eight immortals" - the tag for an exalted club of revolutionaries who lived long enough to stamp their marks on China's reform era history.

The China Youth Daily hinted at the equally impressive power behind the lawyer that Bo arrested: "As Li Zhuang arrived at Chongqing, he began to play the peacock, saying many times 'do you know my background? Do you know who my boss is?"

What the censors won't let local media spell out is that Li's law firm is headed by Fu Yang, who is the son of Peng Zhen, also one of the eight immortals and more powerful than Bo Yibo. Li's lawyer from the same Kangda law firm, Gao Zicheng, said he could not talk about the background politics: "I can't go there …''

Prof. Sida Liu on the Li Zhuang case

Sida Liu is a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and an expert on the Chinese legal profession. He's written four essays (in Chinese) over the last few weeks on the Li Zhuang case. Here they are:

• http://liusida.fyfz.cn/art/559556.htm
• http://liusida.fyfz.cn/art/566947.htm
• http://liusida.fyfz.cn/art/572461.htm
• http://liusida.fyfz.cn/art/581586.htm

Notes on the Stern Hu/Rio Tinto case

Some quick notes on the Stern Hu case, now that the indictment is official. According to a Xinhua News Agency report [English | Chinese]:

The No. 1 branch of the Shanghai People's Procuratorate has decided to prosecute Australian citizen Stern Hu, former head of Rio Tinto's Shanghai office, and three local employees, Wang Yong, Ge Minqiang and Liu Caikui. 

The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court has accepted the case. 

The statement by the court said prosecutors accused the four of "taking advantage of their position to seek profit for others, and asking for, or illegally accepting, huge amounts of money from Chinese steel enterprises." 

They are also charged with trade secret infringement, but I want to comment here mainly on the bribery charges. As can be seen, they are charged not with giving bribes, which seems to have been the original charge, but with soliciting and taking bribes. The Xinhua report then puzzlingly goes on to say that “they lured the Chinese enterprises' heads with promises, or through other illegal means, to obtain the steel companies' commercial secrets on multiple occasions, causing ‘extremely serious consequence’ for the companies.” If obtaining the commercial secrets is linked with the bribery, this doesn’t make sense. You offer bribes to people to get their secrets; people don’t give you secrets and money. The money and the secrets are supposed to go in opposite directions.

It’s possible, of course, that the charges of illicitly obtaining commercial secrets are quite distinct from the charges of taking bribes. In that case, one wonders how the commercial secrets were obtained, if not through bribery (or if through bribery, why there was no charge of giving bribes). We will have to see what specific facts are alleged in the course of the trial.

Back to the charge of receiving bribes. Commercial bribery has not, at least until recently, been widely criminalized in various countries. (There may be some recent movement in that direction, but I don’t have the details. For a recent book-length study, see Gunter Heine et al. (ed.), Private Commercial Bribery (2003); for a recent academic paper on the subject, see Antonio Argandoña, Private-to-Private Corruption.) Traditionally, it’s been viewed as a private problem for private companies to handle. It’s a breach of trust and an act of disloyalty when an employee takes a bribe to do something he shouldn’t do – for example, when a purchasing manager takes a bribe and causes the company to pay more to a supplier than it could have – but many jurisdictions leave it up to the injured employer to decide how to act. The employer might be able to dismiss the employee, or to bring a civil suit to recover damages. Criminal prosecutions seem to be quite rare. (In the United States, it would be a matter of state law; my brief research didn’t turn up any studies of how the states handle this.) And my guess is that they would be rarer still when, as in the Rio Tinto case, the employer, who is supposed to be the injured party, is not complaining and on the contrary actively supports the accused employee.

In China, commercial bribery is covered under Articles 163 and 164 of the Criminal Law. Article 163 criminalizes the receipt of bribes, whereas Article 164 criminalizes giving them.

第一百六十三条  公司、企业的工作人员利用职务上的便利，索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物，为他人谋取利益，数额较大的，处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；数额巨大的，处五年以上有期徒刑，可以并处没收财产。

    公司、企业的工作人员在经济往来中，违反国家规定，收受各种名义的回扣、手续费，归个人所有的，依照前款的规定处罚。

    国有公司、企业中从事公务的人员和国有公司、企业委派到非国有公司、企业从事公务的人员有前两款行为的，依照本法第三百八十五条、第三百八十六条的规定定罪处罚。

Article 163. Company and enterprise work personnel who make use of their job opportunity to demand property from others, or illegally receive others property in exchange for benefits, shall, in cases involving relatively large amounts, be punished with imprisonment or criminal detention for less than five years; for cases involving a huge amount, with imprisonment of over five years, and may be subject to forfeiture of property. 

Company and enterprise work personnel, who, in the course of economic contacts, receive personal kick backs and commissions in various forms in violation of state rules, shall be punished according to provisions under the preceding paragraph. 

Personnel performing public duties in state owned companies and enterprises, and personnel assigned by state owned companies and enterprises to non state owned companies and enterprises for performance of public duties found to be committing the acts mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, shall be convicted and punished according to provisions under Articles 385 and 386 of this law.

    第一百六十四条  为谋取不正当利益，给予公司、企业的工作人员以财物，数额较大的，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；数额巨大的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金。

    单位犯前款罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，依照前款的规定处罚。

    行贿人在被追诉前主动交待行贿行为的，可以减轻处罚或者免除处罚。

Article 164. Offering property to company and enterprise work personnel for improper benefits shall in cases involving relatively large amounts be punished with imprisonment or criminal detention for less than three years, for cases involving a huge amount, with imprisonment of over three years but less than 10 years, and with a fine. 

Units committing offenses under the preceding paragraph shall be punished with a fine, with personnel directly in charge and other directly responsible personnel being punished according to provisions of the preceding paragraph.

A briber who confesses his bribery act before prosecution may receive a lighter sentence or a waiver for punishment. 

Therefore, this case presents several questions.

First, should receiving bribes in a commercial context be a crime at all? That is of course a broad policy question and different jurisdictions will have different rules. I will just repeat my educated guess (given the apparent rarity of such prosecutions in any circumstances) that it would be very unusual in other countries for a criminal charge of receiving bribes to stick where the employer, the supposedly injured party, denied any injury and supported the employee.

Second, what is the standard for “relatively large amount” and “huge amount” in Article 163 that makes the receipt of the bribe criminal? These terms are explained in the Provisions on Standards for Prosecution in Cases of Economic Crime (关于经济犯罪案件追诉标准的规定) passed jointly by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security in 2001. Article 8 puts the floor for prosecution for receipt of bribes at 5,000 yuan, while Article 9 puts the floor for prosecution for giving bribes at 10,000 yuan for individuals and 20,000 for units (e.g., companies). Thus, it seems that the threshold for “relatively large” will probably be easily met. I am not aware of another public document defining “huge”, but there may be one out there (I haven’t searched carefully).

Third, and finally, if the defendants received criminally large bribes in violation of Article 163, then somebody must have offered them criminally large bribes in violation of Article 164. Where is the prosecution against the bribers?

Did Li Zhuang plant a hidden message in his confession?

There's been a lot of discussion on the Chinese internet over whether Li Zhuang planted a hidden message in the six-point confession he delivered orally during his appeal. There is unfortunately no authoritative text of this confession, so the alleged message might in part be the creativity of people who have changed a character here or there to get it. The idea is to take the first character of each sentence to make one phrase, and then take the last character of each sentence to make another. (In the text I have, you have to skip the last character of the 5th sentence and take the last two characters of the 6th sentence.) OK. let's try it out:

　　一、被刑事拘留以来，对我的思想触动很大，在各级组织各级领导的耐心教育下，我逐渐认识到了自己的所作所为玷污了律师的职责，缺失了一名法律工作者应有的职业道德基础。

　　二、比较其他民事代理人，刑事辩护人更应该顾大局、识大体，与党中央保持一致。今后我要努力学习，彻底诀别过去。

　　三、认真反思（这里我要插一句话，我确确实实没有说过龚刚模被樊奇航敲诈，只说他被黑社会敲诈），龚刚模案，浪费了极其宝贵的司法时间，属于思想不纯立场不坚。

　　四、罪行法定，这是基本原则。作为法律工作者应注重事实、法律研究，不应偏听偏信，甚至在大是大非面前执迷不决。

　　五、缓慢的思想转变，为此付出了沉重的代价，也为今后的人生吸取了丰富经验。我要吸取教训，追求未来应有的精神境界。

　　六、《刑法》的宗旨是惩罚罪犯保护人民，我将永远牢记在心。这也是公民应遵守的基本准则。今后无论如何我将为社会做积极贡献。希望二审慎重对待我的上诉。

I've translated the content of some of this in an earlier post. If you take the first characters of each sentence and then the last characters (with the adjustment mentioned above), this gives you "被比（逼）认罪缓刑，础（出）去坚决上诉" (forced to confess to get a suspended sentence, will insistently appeal after release).

Is this plausible? I'm not the conspiracy-theorist type, but it looks plausible to me. The Chinese is a little odd in places; for example, one commonly says 立场不稳, not 立场不坚. And why should the fourth sentence start with "罪行法定，这是基本原则"? That principle of criminal law has nothing to do with the case in question. I guess we will find out when he's free to speak his mind. Not that it really matters.

Here's a story in English about it from Caixin.

Li Zhuang gets 18 months on appeal; disavows earlier "confession"

The extraordinary story of Li Zhuang continues. On appeal, the 2nd-instance court reduced his sentence by one year: from two and a half years to eighteen months. Li Zhuang then announced that his earlier confession had been phony; that it had been elicited by a promise from the government (presumably a promise that he would not go to jail), which they had now gone back on.

This is not surprising - as I noted in an earlier post on this case, the "confession" sounded fake all along, indeed so fake that one suspects Li was signalling its insincerity. The language he used in his "confession" sounded entirely scripted and cliched. (“在各级组织各级领导的耐心教育下”，逐渐认识到“自己的所作所为玷污了律师的职责，缺失了一名法律工作者应有的职业道德基础”，并称“刑事辩护人更应该顾大局、识大体，与党中央保持一致。”) According to the report, this confession was delivered haltingly and with certain language mistakes.

Here's the story from Caixin: http://policy.caing.com/2010-02-09/100116950.html