| Documents of judicial interpretation nature are products of the broader judicial interpretation system. Although these documents do not have the normative status of formal judicial interpretations, they still have a widespread normative effect due to the authoritative status of the issuing bodies. Currently, documents of judicial interpretation nature are not considered objects of legislative supervision mechanisms and therefore not subject to the recordation review by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC). However, given that these documents are subject to the supervision over law implementation and judicial practices, they should still be reviewed by the NPC Standing Committee. The existing approach of “non-recordation but review” creates a misalignment with the broader objective of ensuring full coverage of recordation review of normative documents and hampers the effective realization of meaningful supervision. To address this problem, several theoretical and practical solutions have been proposed. In practice, a phased approach could be adopted to resolve the dilemma of recordation review for these documents. In the initial phase, internal recordation mechanisms could be used to ensure preliminary coverage. In the intermediate phase, a parallel recordation model could be introduced to enhance the intensity of supervision. In the final phase, the dilemma could be comprehensively resolved through the classification and abolition of documents of judicial interpretation nature. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号