Abstract:The limits of justice mean the scope and boundaries of judicial power. This problem relates to the fundamentals of judicial power, such as the suability of disputes and rights, the justice activism and its limits, how to protect rights in the field of social self—organization, and how the justice impact the public policy, etc. Courts in China expanded its powers actively in the initial stage of judicial reform, but today, from one extreme to another, courts often use self—restriction strategies when they face the complexity of social contradictions. This paper tries to draw a relatively specific and clear boundary for judicial power from both theory and practice aspects. The supply of justice is determined by social needs, but the capacity of judicial power is limited, and its function depends on certain conditions. For example, justice can not handle the disputes which lack of one party. Both the number of the litigants and the complexity of the case affect the capacity of judicial power. While justice specializes in deciding the right disputes in the field of purely private interests, the limited nature of judicial function would be revealed when the dispute concerns group disputes, public interest, social self—reduction and the field of science and technology. Judicial power shall abide by its own borders. The limits of justice also remind judges that they must think just like judges rather than legislators, and use the logic of law instead of the logical of moral to demonstrate decision reasons. In the view of protecting litigious right, courts shall not refuse to judge for any reason. So the limits of justice in disputes settlement often lead to the tension between the safeguard of litigious right and the boundary of judicial power. Therefore, the system designs need to find a balance between them. The key is to set up mechanisms for identification and diversion according to the principle of judicial power operation, so that litigable disputes can access to the courts smoothly and those not suit to justice can be diverted to other agencies. To keep restraint on the matter beyond its capacity is the necessary guarantee for judicial authority.

Civil Code and Discretionary Power of Judges

Solution of Disputes and Supervision of Powers: Dispute Solution in Laws Applying to Actions Against Administrative Agencies' Decisions

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

"Typical Cases" As an Informal Legal Source in the Administrative Law

Civil Laws in China and Judicial Cases

The Theoretical Explanation of the Judge's Power of Explication and Legislative Perfection

Judge's Strategy of Settling Lawsuits

Limitations of Discretion in Civil Retrial Procedure

On the General Part of Civil Code and its Legislation Pattern

How Do Chinese Judges Invoke the Constitution? Analysis Based on 1907 Decisions

The Characteristics and Virtues of Civil Code

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

The Position of Judges in Civil Litigation in Transitional China-Judicial Mediation and Case Management

New Exploration the Scope of Judge's Clarification Power

The Review and Outlook of China Civil Code Constitution

Limits of Justice: Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

The Predicaments and Solutions in Compiling the Civil Code of China

A Historical Perspective on the Unification of Private Law and the Future of the Civil Code

Preliminary Discussion on the System of the Civil Code of China

Concerns about the Form of Legislation on Civil Laws

On the Structure Arrangement of the Future Civil Code in China