In China, service of process not only occupies a significant number of resources of the courts, but also delays the progress in case hearing. Why?
How Chinese Courts Work
China’s Supreme People's Court (SPC) is prompting judges to explain their reasons as carefully as possible in judgment writing.
Chinese courts have developed a performance appraisal system to measure judges’ performance. If you want to establish reasonable expectations about how Chinese judges hear cases, the role of this system should not be overlooked.
Chinese courts have been facing a litigation explosion in the recent five years, which has caused work overload to judges. Dealing with litigation explosion has now become one of the top priorities for the supreme court and local courts in China.
The most important difference between litigation and arbitration in China is that judges and arbitrators have different ways of thinking.
The Supreme People's Court (SPC) of China has implemented many reform measures in the third-round judicial reform, which deeply affects the current operating mechanisms of Chinese courts. Therefore, if you want to know how Chinese courts work, you must understand what the SPC did in the third-round judicial reform.
Before rendering a judgment, a Chinese judge shall undergo review and approval by his/her superiors, who haven't tried the case. This practice has existed in China until recently, when China’s Supreme People Court has ruled out the practice in part in the latest round of judicial reform (2014-2017).
Improving the judicial accountability system, one of the most important measures in Chinese judicial reform, is supposed to hold judges accountable for life for cases they handle and to effectively discipline judges for misconduct. Prior to this, Chinese judges were never subject to such strict requirements.
China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) tries to empower judges to exercise adjudicative power independently while taking more measures to supervise the trial work.