|
|
|
| Enhancing Judicial Efficiency Through Modernized Judicial Systems: Addressing the Challenge of a Large Number of Cases and a Shortage of Personnel Through Institutional Improvement and Reform and Innovation |
| Jiang Bixin |
| School of Law, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Currently, China’s judicial system is universally grappling with the structural dilemma of “a surging caseload amid an insufficient judicial workforce”. The growing tension between the continuous upward trend in case volumes and the scarcity of judicial resources not only burdens judges with overwhelming workloads and undermines judicial efficiency, but also entails profound risks, such as compromised quality of judicial rulings and eroded judicial credibility. Constrained by practical constraints including fiscal budgets and staffing ceilings, the traditional approach of simply calling for “expanding staffing quotas and increasing personnel” can no longer meet the ever-growing demand generated by the rising caseload. Furthermore, as this approach fails to tackle the core issue of enhancing judicial efficiency, even short-term supplementary staffing tends to trap the system in a vicious cycle. To achieve a long-term solution to the predicament of a large backlog of cases and inadequate supply of judicial personnel, it is essential to establish a modern judicial system, optimize judicial procedures at the source, and boost judicial effectiveness. Adopting a combination of normative analysis and empirical research, this paper puts forward a systematic solution covering twelve dimensions, offering targeted measures that are both theoretically sound and practically feasible for constructing a coordinated and efficient judicial system. These twelve measures, each with distinct focuses and mutually reinforcing functions, form a comprehensive practical framework, as detailed below:1. Optimization of Resource Allocation. Develop a dynamic judicial resource deployment mechanism to achieve precise alignment between the supply of judicial resources and the demands of case handling.2. Intensification of Diversified Dispute Resolution. Build a “one-stop” dispute resolution platform to break the long-standing pattern where various stakeholders act in isolation in dispute governance.3. Typologization of the Mediation-Litigation Relationship. Clarify the differentiated application scenarios for mediation and litigation, so as to realize the efficient matching of dispute resolution methods with specific dispute types.4. Fairness in Litigation Costs. Establish a differentiated litigation fee system, striking a dynamic balance between “ensuring unobstructed channels for safeguarding rights” and “preventing the abuse of legal rights”.5. Standardization of Case Filing Review. Adopt comprehensive measures to address the problem of procedural redundancy in case filing procedures, consolidating the first line of defense for judicial remedies.6. Consolidation of Related Litigations. Establish a joint trial mechanism to improve litigation efficiency, facilitate the discovery of factual truth, and avoid conflicting judicial rulings.7. Legitimization of Judicial Procedures. Promote reforms to standardize judicial procedures, so as to restrict and eliminate arbitrary decisions and prejudices of judges.8. Objectivation of Evaluation and Expertise. Improve the regulatory system for forensic appraisal and evaluation, and rectify the irregularities in the field of appraisal and evaluation.9. Clarification of Judicial Rules. Construct a sound system of judicial rules to mitigate the drawbacks and risks arising from the uncertainty in the application of laws.10. Substantiation of Dispute Resolution. Resolve various disputes in a thorough and in-depth manner, realizing the integration of political effects, social effects and legal effects.11. Precision of Judicial Supervision. Improve the judicial supervision mechanism to ensure that any judicial injustice has no place to hide.12. Intellectualization of Auxiliary Tools. Further advance the construction of smart courts, so as to unleash the core productive forces of the judicial system.
|
|
Received: 12 June 2025
|
|
|
|
1 《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革 推进中国式现代化的决定》，《人民日报》2024年7月22日，第1版。
2 张军：《最高人民法院工作报告——二〇二五年三月八日在第十四届全国人民代表大会第三次会议上》，《人民日报》2025年3月16日，第2版。
3 陈卫东主编：《建设公正高效权威的社会主义司法制度研究》第一卷，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2013年。
4 孙笑侠、吴彦：《论司法的法理功能与社会功能》，《中国法律评论》2016年第4期，第73-88页。
5 习近平：《坚定不移走中国特色社会主义法治道路 为全面建设社会主义现代化国家提供有力法治保障》，《求是》2021年第5期，第4-15页。
6 白龙飞：《16家单位共商以“总对总”促“抓前端、治未病”》，2024年1月18日，https：//www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/423472.html，2025年6月18日。
7 苏力：《法治及其本土资源》，北京：法律出版社，1998年。
8 寿媛君：《网络社会提升公众感知司法公正的路径研究》，见唐力主编：《司法改革论评》2022年第2辑（总第34辑），厦门：厦门大学出版社，2023年，第161-178页。
9 王聪、廖永安：《我国诉讼费用制度改革重点问题探讨——〈诉讼费用交纳办法〉再检讨》，《中国法律评论》2025年第3期，第76-89页。
10 何海波：《走出行政诉讼的“卡夫丁峡谷”——行政争议实质性解决纵论》，《中国法律评论》2024年第3期，第53-69页。
11 周翠：《民事诉讼中的合并审理：判例与学说》，《人民司法》2025年第5期，第78-98页。
12 江必新：《行政程序正当性的司法审查》，《中国社会科学》2012年第7期，第123-140，205-206页。
13 习近平：《论坚持全面依法治国》，北京：中央文献出版社，2020年。
14 贺荣：《确保民法典统一正确实施》，2021年3月6日，https：//www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/289321.html，2025年7月18日。
15 龙宗智：《影响司法公正及司法公信力的现实因素及其对策》，《当代法学》2015年第3期，第3-15页。
16 陈瑞华：《从“流水作业”走向“以裁判为中心”——对中国刑事司法改革的一种思考》，《法学》2000年第3期，第24-30，34页。
17 谭世贵、曲涛：《依法治国的新思考》，见陈光中主编：《中国司法制度的基础理论专题研究》，北京：北京大学出版社，2005年，第3-30页。
18 陈伟：《刑罚退出机制如何实现——从对积极刑法观的反思切入》，《社会科学》2023年第8期，第166-178页。
19 盛若蔚：《习近平在全国组织工作会议上强调 建设一支宏大高素质干部队伍 确保党始终成为坚强领导核心》，《人民日报》2013年6月30日，第1版。
20 陈肖宇、陈力夫、吴宗怀：《关注数字法治发展 推进“数字法院”建设——“能动司法视域下数字法治发展与数字法院建设研讨会”综述》，《人民法院报》2024年1月18日，第7版。
21 黄文艺：《中国司法改革基本理路解析》，《法制与社会发展》2017年第2期，第5-25页。
22 佚名：《习近平对政法工作作出重要指示强调 更加注重系统观念法治思维强基导向 切实推动政法工作高质量发展》，《人民日报》2021年1月10日，第1版。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
