（Abstract）

In the paper，the author articulates general views about the training of Chinese judges from two points of view，respectively the ideal mode and practicaloperation. The former analysis is through comparison with the related practicesin foreign countries；the latter analysis is based on the professional situation of Chinese judges.

According to practice overseas，there Are two meanings of the term Judicial Training. Just as，the name implies，judicial training means the training ofjudges. From the foreign situations we have observed，however，it seems that people could understand the term in two ways. One is the strict or narrow sense，which means the continued education of sitting judges and even the other staff working in the courts. The other is the broad sense，which，in addition to the narrow meaning，also involves the process of educating a layman to become a judge.

Take for instance Germany，according German constitutional law the conditions for being appointed as a judge apart from having German nationality and being loyal to the German Constitution，this also includes the need to be qualified to undertake judicial work. This qualification means，in simple terms，that one hastopass two national judicial examinations. Judges are usually appointed by theChief Justice of each state from among the most outstanding candidates that have passed the exams. Considering the whole process of cultivating and training judicial officers（including judges），is made up of approximately four phases，i. e. legal education in universities，internship，education as assistant judges and continued education of judges. The former two belong to common legal education，entered before one is appointed as a judge and directed not towards judicial profession alone，thus they belong to the pre-appointment cultivation and training.The latter two phases belong to the post-appointment，and in a strict sense，judicial training，that could respectively be called training of junior judges and training of senior judges. This German method acts as a model within states orareas employing the Continental legal tradition.

Comparatively，Common Law countries，such as America，do not have the suchlegal education in universities and training of judicial officers，nor seeminglydo they have a linked cultivation system of judges；rather，they seem to pay more attention to the importance of practice and experience in the process of making a judge. At the same time，considering the establishment inns of court and the like in England，the American pre-appointment education and training of legalprofessionals to some extent depends more on the law schools in universities.However，as for the training of sitting judges，these countries and districts share the following common grounds，special institutions are established to organizesuch training，very short term training，and an emphasis on new knowledge，etc.

When making a comparative analysis of the situation in China we can observethe following；Firstly，the judicial training in China refers to the training of sitting judges，thus “judicial training” belongs to a narrow definition of theterm. Secondly，the legal education practiced in law schools or law departmentsin Chinese universities，like the university-level legal education in countriesand districts under the Continental legal tradition such as Germany，could be attributed to a type of common legal education without a definite professional direction. On the basis of the two judgments above，we should perhaps make the following considerations and choices；one is to maintain the narrow understanding of the term “judicial training”，meanwhile to strengthen the professional direction or characteristics of the legal education in university law schools. The other choice is to extend the meaning of “judicial training”，making it a term involving pre-appointment training which could be linked up with the common legal education in universities.

Taking account of the professional position and judicial training，we should envisage development and maintain reasonable tension. When，talking about thepractical operation of judicial training，we have to make the analysis from thepoint of view of the situation of Chinese judges and the development encountered. The author engages in an analysis from the below two aspects；in one aspect，there is an inherent logical relationship between profession，quality and training. The question is，seeing from the present situation in China，what kind of profession is it to be a judge，and looking from the angle of developing rule of law，what kind of profession should it be to be a judge. When we talk about thequality requirement and professional training，we have to base ourselves on the requirements by the Chinese society，and to consider the professional position ofjudges in the society；which implies both considering the professional positionof judges，and when faced with the present situation，to consider the transformation and development of the Chinese society. What should be recognized is thatin present day China，judges are regarded as a profession；this has gained increasingly public acceptance. Like all the other social professions，the judicialprofession has its own quality requirement，the formation of which cannot be achieved without education and training. Such is the basic logical relationship between the profession，quality and education.

China’s problem is，although people have recognized that the quality requirement of judges should be further raised，they have not formed a clear understanding that the judicial profession is a technical profession with very high quality requirements. Looking at the present situation of the structure and qualityof the judicial profession，as well as the expectations to the role of judges bythe state and the society up until now，does not mean that we should be satisfied with the present situation，rather it is to indicate that the pursue to the target one should be down-to-earth. In present day China，the word “development” should become a continuous concept whether in time or space. We must form and maintain a proper tension between being “conservative” and “aggressive”.

On the other hand，in the various arrangements of the goal，organization，object，content，time，as well as arrangements of teachers，training methods andevaluation of effects of the judicial training，we should not only consider thepresent situation of the structure and quality of the Chinese judicial profession. We should also consider the changes and development of the Chinese judicialprofession that we must face in the while working hard to realize rule of law.

Taking present situation of the structure and quality，of the Chinese judicial profession into consideration，if the judicial training is not limited to the higher levels of the judiciary，it will have to become a relatively broad topic. Looking at the situation from foreign countries with a developed rule of law，however，the judicial training in a strict sense is a very limited topic，focusing onthe continuous renovation after judges assuming the post of the professional knowledge，professional technology and professional ethics. Differing from this，the creators of the plan for China’s judicial education have to conscientiously choose its own starting point due to objectively existing reasons. We have to especially emphasize that Chinese judicial training must consider the future demandsof the rule of law and judicial reform in China. One of the important contentsof the judicial reform is to raise the quality of judges，and judges are the carriers of the judicial power，thus the enhancement of judges’ quality is a basicprecondition to give full play to the role of the judicature. Current judicialtraining plans should embody the characteristics of a transforming society，servethe needs of judicial reform and establish a modern judicial system，serving the designs of a rule of law society.

Translated by Ran Hao

Edited by Otto Malmgren