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.

The Limits of Majority Principle

The New Interpretation of Majority Tyranny

The Logic of the Limitation of Public Interest on Basic Rights

Rethinking Liberty:On Sen's impossibility of a Paretian libertarian theorem

The Special Rights of Minorities in Countries under the Rule of Law

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

Limits of Justice: Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

The Demarcation Line between Rights——Illustrated by Article V. of German Fundamental Law

The Constitutional Rights under the Special Power Nexus

On Freedom and Democracy

Protection of the Minority Rights Being an Important Constituent of Democracy

The Limits of Constitutional Amendments and the Challenges of Constitutional Amending Models——A Legal Appraisal in the Context of China's Constitutional Development in the Past Sixty Years

Restrict or Mould:on the Duality of the Function of the Law Concerning Basic Rights

Demarcation Line Between Rights: A Perspective of the First Amendment to US Constitution

The Contact Point and Difference between the Principle of Prohibition of Excessively Abundant Restriction and the Principle of Prohibition of Excessively Deficient Protection as Constitutional Principles

Thinking Frame of Constitution of Fundamental Rights

Contemporary or Lasting?——A Administrative Law Perspective for CAR Ban

The Theoretical Prospect in the Age of Rights

Equality As the Supreme Justice

Philosophical Retrospection on the Issue of Equality

On The Scope Of Limitation's Application