（Abstract）

This article relates to a few new understandings of China’s judicial reformby the author，concerning internal and external reasons influencing the court system，and based on an analysis of these reasons several initial suggestions areput forward.

The main drawback of China’s present judicial system is the dual loss of the. Capacity of judicial self-determination and responsibility of judicial self-restraint. Due to a variety of social forces influencing judicial adjudicativeacts in direct or indirect，proper or improper，rational or irrational，systematical or non-systematical ways. Although a large number of judicial adjudicativeacts are not results of the courts submitting to other social forces，however，they will inevitably pay attention to the requirements of other social forces. Thegradual loss of the capacity of judicial self-determination has lead to the further decline of the responsibility of judicial self-restraint. Because the influence of exterior authorities rocks the idea of strict legal enforcement by judicial organs and their staff members，weakens the confidence of strict legal enforcement by law of judicial organs and their staff members，and thus cause the self-indulgence of judicial organs and their staff members.

The two factors，e. g. loss of the capacity of judicial self-determination and responsibility of judicial self-restraint comprise vicious cycle. Thus，theybring about the situation of severe judicial localization and judicial corruption and judicial inefficiency in China.

To establish a modern legal system based on the system of division of powers in countries with centralized powers as a special characteristic is both the theme and difficulty of judicial reforms. Each specific suggestion judicial reform is directly or indirectly based on the precondition of judicial independence.The idealized model for a judicial system put forward by the theoretical and judicial circles is actually using the present form of modern judicial system basedon Western style separation of powers. However，the political or power framework in China is not founded on the principle of separation of powers. Moreover，the ideology，which embodies the centralization of powers in China’s political system，is clearly antagonistic and cautious to the principle of separation of powers. Then，would it be possible for us to establish a modern judicial system onthe basis of the principle of separation of powers in a country that features centralization of powers？The experiences from practicing market economy in China have revealed that there are reasons for answering the above-mentioned questionin the affirmative. However，a modern judicial system must create some prerequisites for the sake of independence of judicial adjudicative acts. On the questionof the independence of judicial acts，three problems must be resolved：1. the preservation of the independence of judicial adjudicative acts cannot lead to theemergence of a Western “separation of powers” within the political system in China；2. the independence of judicial adjudicative acts should be considered asrespect towards the realization of norms in a human society - as these adjudicative activities are，and not as a kind of political ideology；3. to lay emphasison the independence of judicial adjudicative acts does not imply taking away the control of dominant political forces over judicial activities.

As for the interior of the court system，we must，1. remove exterior influential factors to guarantee the independence of judicial adjudicative acts；2.set up a system of collegiate bench standards and return the power to it；3.establish a new type of supervision and guarantees system. The interaction between these three factors it is the principal thought of judicial reform.

Two reasons for removing external influences are：1. practice has proved that it is hard to define which exterior influence factor is “due supervision”or“inappropriate interference”；2. even though it might be considered appropriate “exterior supervision”，it often reflects the claims of the supervisor and what it represents. There are three specific trends of thought on how to get ridofexterior influence. The first trend is to centralize power. The second trend isto decentralize power. The third trend is to integrate the two but then givepriority to decentralizing power.

To set up a system of collegiate bench standards and return the power to it. Establishing such a standard is not only for the respect of the trial rules，but also for the sake of inserting a barrier between the judges and the social power organs in order to reduce the influence on the judicial adjudicative acts bythe social authorities.

Thirdly，we should establish a new type of supervision and guarantees system comprising two main aspects；one is the supervision of law enforcement discipline；the other is specialized supervision. A special disciplinary committee forjudges should be set up above the intermediate court level，which holds responsibility for supervising and punishing judges of the courts of its level or belowwho acts in contravention with the judges’law enforcement discipline. The specialized supervision refers to the establishment of an expert committee in the People’s Congresses above district，city or prefectural levels. The expert committee reviews and hears petitions and complaints from the parties to a case and other organs that are not convinced or satisfied with the decisions of the second instance hearings or the final rulings，and initiates investigations and hearingsfrom a specialized angle，finally giving an expert committee opinion. The opinion of the expert committee is a prerequisite to be able to start a third instance hearing，and is also one of the factors in the determination of misjudged cases. The expert committee can be chosen from among scholars，lawyers，judges andprosecutors，but each member acts on behalf of himself，and not his original institution when he exerts his authority. When investigating and hearing depositions，the expert committee must act in accordance with strict procedural rules. Thecases，in which the expert committee of a lower level cannot agree upon，may bebrought up before the expert committee of a higher level.

At the end of this article，the author points out that China’s judicial reformshoulders heavy responsibilities and they cannot be realized in one move. To finally reach the goals of the judicial reforms，we must formulate and initiate a comprehensive reform program.

Translated by Li Zhong

Edited by Otto Malmgren