| "Trial centralism" is a theoretical extraction made by Chinese scholars in the context of comparative research on the criminal litigation system and on the basis of observation of European and American legal systems. It is used as a frame of reference for categorizing Chinese litigation system, and for carrying out corresponding countermeasure study. By contrast, "trial-centered litigation reform" refers to a set of organizing principles proposed and implemented by reform decision-making and executive authorities in the context of contemporary Chinese judicial reform. It aims at solving certain practical problems, such as frequent occurrence of wrongful criminal convictions and decline of public trust in the judiciary, and functions as an instrument for advancing strict administration of justice. Both of the two discourse systems are directed to the reform of Chinese litigation system, but they have large divergences in such aspects as institutional visions, reform content, value orientation, and approaches to advancement. These divergences have led to the malposed relation between theoretical research and reform practice. As a result, legal theories and legal practice cannot really interact with each other, reach substantial consensus, and make joint contribution on the issue of "trial-center". One probably feasible solution to this problem is to enable the "trial centralism" theory and the "trial-centered litigation" policy to share a standpoint of procedural legal dogmatics in a positive and constructive way. By doing so, they will function as two kinds of "pre-understanding" in the sense of hermeneutics and competitively provide development motivation as well as interpretation frameworks for the evolution of procedural law. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号