The Substantive Way of Thinking of Chinese Traditional Judge
SUN Xiao-xia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2005.04.001
2005-01-01
Abstract:In ancient and medieval China, there had never been such professional lawyers like that in Western context. The so-called judges in so many dynasties in China were not a kind of legal profession, they were just administrative officials and were subject to administrative power. Under the siege of political groups, the legal formalism did not grow until very late in China, therefore, there did not exist a community of lawyers', let alone the professional legal training at that time. So the “populist judges” in this article are not professionalist judges, they do not belong to the jurists by their lack of autonomy, moreover, there was not any posibility to form a professionalist legal community which could promote the law development.As far as we know, judicial professionalism requires that judges should have some kind of professional way of thinking which is quite different and apart from the popular thinking of layman's and the political thinking of politician's, even though the judicial democratism insists that judges should emphasize public opinions and interests of common people in order to satisfy the substantive requests of the mass's. On the contrast to legal formalism, the way of thinking of Chinese traditional judges was a way which emphasized substantive goals and despised formal proceeding, and which is called substantive thinking. The main points of substantive thinking includes in the following: to pay attention to the content, purpose and result of the law, but look down upon the form, means and procedures of the law; to emphasize the ideology of legal activity, but ignore the technological form of legal activity; to seek the facts outside the law, but disfavor the logic in the law.Generally the factors that caused substantive thinking of our traditional judges can be concluded as the following: culture, language and organization.The surprising thing is that while such substantive thinking inclination has being denied in contemporary China, it has being recognized for the law renovaton in the West. Thus, the thinking way of Chinese traditional judge has some similar to the thinking of those judges who persist the legal thought of post-liberalism. Still then, such a substantive mode of thinking, is some danger to rule of law to contemporary China. Though it self has some problems, and it has been criticized too, for contemporary China, the legal formalism, ″the law that can be relied on like machine″, is far more necessary than that legal substantive rationality for the rule of law in China Therefore, we expect that Chinese law would move towards formal rationality.