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.

Libel Offence,Right of Criticism and the Democratic Compact of Constitution

On Coping Mechanisms of Procuratorate for the Public Opinion-Related Cases

From Special Mitigation to Unconstitutional Censorship: Taking Xu Ting Case as an Example

On Legal Guarantee Against the Supervisory Right of Network Public Opinions

The Basic Modification Direction of The Administrative Procedure Law——Discussing Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law

On Criminal Penalty Restriction in Internet Public Opinion Supervising

Right to Be Informed and Legal Safeguard thereof

Reflection on Administrative Litigation System under the Concept of "people Oriented"

On the Normative Intention of Defamation, the Right of Supervision and the 41st Clause of the Constitution

Governing in Accordance with Constitution:A Guiding Principle to Judge the Criticism and Supervision Rights of Netizens

Defamation Case Law in Hong Kong: A Corpus-Based Study

A Tentative Study of the Judicatory Principles of Protecting the Supervision of the Public Opinions

An Expectation to a Good Law——Suggestion to The Public Library Law(Draft for Examination)

Public Opinion's Supervision & Judicial Independence

THE REAL PLIGHT BETWEEN THE JUDICATURE AND PUBLIC OPINION AND ITS EXTRICATION IN TERMS OF JURISPRUDENCE

Criticism on the Theory Obstacle of Punitive Damages in Our Country

Examination of Several Controversial Issues in the Administrative Litigation Law (Draft)

Critical Thinking on Article 8 of the Administrative Licence Law

Limits of Justice: Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

The Function and Procedure of the Civil Public Interests Litigation

Legislation of Information Publication and Revision of Concerning Laws and Regulations