（Abstract）

As reform goes on deepening in regard to the way judicial trials are conducted，widespread reform concerning written judgments is sweeping across the courtnetwork all over the country，focusing in turn on the ratio decidendi text. However，ratio decidendi itself is still an issue standing in the way of the reformprocess owing to the fact that it is scarcely dealt with in terms of its systematic and ontological meaning. In this article，we will come up with two pointsconcerning reform in this respect.

Firstly，we have sorted out in an overall way theories and institutional practice of the two major law systems and thus summed up tantatively what is worthtaking notice of in China’s judicial practice. Relevant materials show that in the countries of the Anglo-American law system，ratio decidendi consists in the legal principles regarded as applicable to the case at issue，whereas no part thereof tells how the proving force of the relevant evidence is evaluated and whether and how facts are confirmed. Ratio decidendi takes shape in the judicial reasoning process of the judge（s），and such reasoning proceeds mainly following thedialogue-selection pattern. Such a characteristic feature of the Anglo-Americanlaw system is due to the judicial tradition，followed by the judges of the countries of this system，of having laws made by judges and adhering to past jurisprudential precedents. Unlike in these countries，in those of the continental lawsystem the “syllogistic” judiciary reasoning pattern is adhered to. Just as is pointed out by Yasuhei Taniguchi（1934-），“judgment is generally regarded as the process by which a conclusion is arrived at in a syllogistical logical way by checking against relevant legal essential requisites the facts cited by the partiesand confirmed by evidence. ” The syllogistical pattern of judicial reasoningcarries in itself the implicit premise of stressing the role of statutory law and guarding against any abuse of power by the judges while recognizing at the same time their authority for interpreting law and plugging loopholes in drafting theratio decidendi text. Lest the judges should abuse their authority，they are required to announce their ratio decidendi. In short，ratio decidendi in the Anglo-American law system，by its institutional nature，constitutes a source of case law，whereas in the countries of the continental law system it is of essentiallytechnical nature and stems from concern about power abuse on the part of the judges.

Secondly，a comparative study of the theories on ratio decidendi of the two law systems and their real practice in this respect，with due consideration for the practice of China’s reform concerning written judgments，seems to justifythe following assertions：

1. In China，a country not governed by case law，ratio decidendi does notenjoy the status of source of law as is the case in the countries of the Anglo-American law system. However，it is worthwhile to take into due consideration their idea in this respect to the effect that judicial reasoning should be highlyevaluated in the process of shaping a ratio decidendi and that the active role of the judges should be emphasized. In China，traditionally long influenced bythe culture of the continental law system，the syllogistic pattern should be recognized as valid for judicial reasoning and judgments should be publicly announcedin order to be put under supervision.

2. The need to curb and erradicate judicial corruption in the process of fostering the rule of law is a question worthy of serious attention. To curb such corruption and foster professionalism among law workers，it will be of practical significance to highlight the need for publicly announced ratio decidendi.

3. Ratio decidendi should have its legitimacy firmly proved.Legitimacyis central to the theory of modern rule of law. Judgment conducted by judges according to law justifies in a sense the legitimacy of their decision. More important，however，is the acceptability of their decision. This is to say that judgment according to law and acceptability of the judgment decision，both combined，constitute the very foundation of legitimacy. The proposed reform regarding ratio decidendi is precisely aimed at ensuring acceptability for the judgmentdecision.

4. In the process of reform regarding ratio decidendi，close attention should be paid to the checking role of institutional mechanisms. Written judgmentsthemselves constitute something institutionally substantial，closely linked to other institutional elements such as judicial independence and the independent status of the judges，an issue central to the reform of the judicial system in general and bound to have substantial influence on the orientation and pace of there form regarding ratio decidendi. Nevertheless，the reality of a gradual path already chosen for China’s judicial reform dictates that，as far as reform regarding ratio decidendi is concerned，we can neither stand still nor indulge in blind optimism.

Translated by Chen Yongyi and Zhang Zhipin