|
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.
|
|
Published: 30 September 2025
|
|
|
|
