（Abstract）

Legal reform has been put on the cross-century reform agenda by many countries，while the orientation of the reforms roughly depends on the socio-economic conditions of each nation；the specific content of reforms are dominated by individual judicial systems and the basic ideology behind them. Although the judicial powers are similarly oriented，judicial ideologies generated by the Continental legal system and the Anglo-American legal system are actually quite different. Consequently，there are considerable differences in aspects of judicial organizations，procedures，even the management of the legal profession，which are closely affiliated with each other. Therefore the reformers can merely make functional adjustments to the functions on the basis of the system.

It is not a coincidence that the claims for judicial reforms initially took place during the course of the democratization of Taiwan province of China. The facts that the judicature has been taken as a part of the authoritative system，and that human rightswere not sufficiently protected，are related to the inadequate independence of the judicature. Thus，after the relevant systems have basically been established，it is necessary to further deepen the rule of law. But on the other hand，thediversified development of the Taiwanese society and the imbalance of the traditional social control mechanisms have given birth to the dramatic increase in various legal actions over the last ten years，leading to the saturation of the judicial functions. As a result it seems to be impossible to match the increase ofcases by an increase of resources. Although Taiwan cannot substantially be takenas a country enjoying a high-level of rule of law，the country has already beendeeply hurt by exaggerated rule of law，and it is necessary to be directed towards the simplification of the rule of law. With regard to the first question，the Judicial Office，which leads the reforms by the re-orienting itself from a judicial administrative organ that does not exercise direct judicial powers，to thehighest judicial organ that at the same time is in charge of national judicial administration. In response to the second problem，the construction of pyramidaljudicial structure with the Judicial Office at its apex，not only does the constitution and statutes need to be amended，changes include relevant systems such as organizations，procedures，education and assessment organs，but also thoroughly change the original location of the judicial powers，the judicial ideologies of the court，the social functions of criminal proceedings，as well as the functions of the roles of judges，procurators and lawyers. Actually，this reform isanadjustment that transfers a typical judicial system of a Continental legal tradition，into an Anglo-American legal system. Being close to an overall comprehensive reform that is planned to finish within 10 years，and that this will createa huge impact on the 100 year-old judicial system goes without saying.

The ongoing reforms has already witnessed a lot of “combinations”，for example，the combination of the two principles of litigant instigation and investigationby the authorities in criminal procedure law；the system of dividing jurisdiction between high level courts and local courts still exists in the court system even after the combining at the level of the court of last instance；another example is with regard to the law’s investigation of violations of the constitution，court of all levels when hearing individual cases，may affirm violations of theconstitution without consulting anyone，at the same time the chief justice stillpossessed the authority to collectively declare the unconstitutional laws. Someof these combinations are only necessary transformations for adapting to the track changes of the reforms；other combinations are due to the reformers’ reluctance to abandon the former systems，hoping to make good use of the two systems.Obviously，the reformers are neglecting the different judicial ideologies behindthe institutions，underestimating the mutual supplementation and complementationof each sector. As a result，the whole enforcement solution is actually drifting between two ideologies，possibly resulting in bringing tremendous social costs，absolutely without resolving too many problems，and quite to the contrary simply creating even more new problems.

In the final analysis，the reason why the solutions are unable to resolve the problems the set out to resolve lies in the reformers’ inability to grasp the cause of the disease. The author believes that the problem is neither due to the 100year-old European Continental legal system implemented in Taiwan，nor the judicial ideologies behind it，but rather to the unsuccessful development of a legalculture that is able to adopt this system into the society. Whatever the effortsmade on changing the system into the equally non-native Anglo-American legalsystem，including changing the minds of legal professionals；if people’s minds arenot changed，the system will remain as divided as before. People will not trustthe judicial justice more because of the role of the judges，prosecutors and lawyers has changed，or because of the merging or separation of the judicial system. The proper way should be to carry out reforms on the basis of the existinglegal system，focusing on the socialization of justice，and trying make the judiciary take on an educational function. In terms of adjustments on the institutional level，the simplification of the rule of law should be stressed. As to institutional reform，we should calculate the cost-benefit cautiously rather than aspire to greatness and success. The author believes that most of the ongoing adjustments could all achieve more fruitful results at much lower costs.

With regard to the current judicial reforms on the Chinese mainland，the authorproposes to put emphasis on professionalization of judicial personnel，the firststep of which is to unify the national exams. Although the Chinese system differentiates substantially with the Western countries where the checks and balancessystem is implemented，the author suggests that in aspects of the judiciary’sorganization and procedures，the functional orientation should be clarified and expose the neutral，passive，a posteriori，case-by-case and controversial characters of the judicial powers，so as to distinguish it from other departments. Moreover，a system safeguarding justices’ status and occupational independence needs to be established as soon as possible. Judicial independence needs to be realized through strict form and reasoning，as well as through transparent procedures.The Mainland will probably also face the problem of choosing between the legalfamilies，since using the other system for reference will inevitably lead to a kind of combination，in the long run，the problem of compatibility among different systems should not be underestimated. Finally，the author points out that because many modern legal concepts are not deeply rooted in the Chinese society，while pursuing judicial professionalization，we must through appropriate education，avoid the exclusion of the people from the law caused by the deepening of professional factors.

Translated by Jiang Qian

Edited by Otto Malmgren