16. 正义

William J. Hurst
{"title":"16. 正义","authors":"William J. Hurst","doi":"10.7591/9780801462511-019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 1978, it has been fashionable, both inside China and around the world, to speak of the Maoist era as a period of near lawlessness, during which basic institutions of justice and adjudication essentially ceased to function in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), whether for purposes of criminal punishment or civil dispute resolution. In this telling, China had some form of traditional or capitalist legal system prior to 1949, and later recovered from the Maoist dark ages to reestablish a new rational developmentalist legal order that could underpin a new form of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and eventually help give rise to a socialist market economy, while preserving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in power. The (re)construction of the legal system is thus central to the CCP’s ideological narrative of the reform era, even as critics abroad continue to decry China’s alleged rule of law shortcomings and pine for greater change (see Trevaskes’s essay in the present volume). Both the Party and its critics base their perspectives on an assumption that whatever legal order existed prior to the Revolution was destroyed or suspended, but not replaced, during the subsequent three decades. Both narratives make this explicit in claiming that no law functioned at all during the ‘long Cultural Revolution’ (1966–76). Unfortunately, such breathless teleological accounts misjudge and misconstrue the Maoist legal system that actually existed and functioned between 1949 and 1978.","PeriodicalId":117193,"journal":{"name":"The Triangle Fire","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"16. JUSTICE\",\"authors\":\"William J. Hurst\",\"doi\":\"10.7591/9780801462511-019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since 1978, it has been fashionable, both inside China and around the world, to speak of the Maoist era as a period of near lawlessness, during which basic institutions of justice and adjudication essentially ceased to function in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), whether for purposes of criminal punishment or civil dispute resolution. In this telling, China had some form of traditional or capitalist legal system prior to 1949, and later recovered from the Maoist dark ages to reestablish a new rational developmentalist legal order that could underpin a new form of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and eventually help give rise to a socialist market economy, while preserving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in power. The (re)construction of the legal system is thus central to the CCP’s ideological narrative of the reform era, even as critics abroad continue to decry China’s alleged rule of law shortcomings and pine for greater change (see Trevaskes’s essay in the present volume). Both the Party and its critics base their perspectives on an assumption that whatever legal order existed prior to the Revolution was destroyed or suspended, but not replaced, during the subsequent three decades. Both narratives make this explicit in claiming that no law functioned at all during the ‘long Cultural Revolution’ (1966–76). Unfortunately, such breathless teleological accounts misjudge and misconstrue the Maoist legal system that actually existed and functioned between 1949 and 1978.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Triangle Fire\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Triangle Fire\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801462511-019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Triangle Fire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801462511-019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自1978年以来,无论是在中国国内还是在世界各地,都流行把毛时代说成是一个近乎无法无天的时期,在此期间,中华人民共和国的基本司法和审判机构基本上停止了运作,无论是出于刑事处罚还是民事纠纷解决的目的。按照这种说法,中国在1949年之前有某种形式的传统或资本主义法律体系,后来从毛主义的黑暗时代恢复过来,重建了一种新的理性发展主义法律秩序,这种秩序可以支撑一种具有中国特色的新形式的社会主义,并最终有助于建立社会主义市场经济,同时保持中国共产党的执政。因此,(重新)构建法律体系是中共改革时代意识形态叙事的核心,即使国外的批评者继续谴责中国所谓的法治缺陷,并渴望更大的变革(见特雷瓦斯克在本期的文章)。共产党及其批评者的观点都基于这样一个假设:革命前存在的任何法律秩序都被摧毁或暂停,但在随后的30年里没有被取代。这两种说法都明确表示,在“漫长的文化大革命”(1966-76)期间,根本没有法律发挥作用。不幸的是,这种令人窒息的目的论描述错误地判断和曲解了1949年至1978年间实际存在和运作的毛主义法律体系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
16. JUSTICE
Since 1978, it has been fashionable, both inside China and around the world, to speak of the Maoist era as a period of near lawlessness, during which basic institutions of justice and adjudication essentially ceased to function in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), whether for purposes of criminal punishment or civil dispute resolution. In this telling, China had some form of traditional or capitalist legal system prior to 1949, and later recovered from the Maoist dark ages to reestablish a new rational developmentalist legal order that could underpin a new form of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and eventually help give rise to a socialist market economy, while preserving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in power. The (re)construction of the legal system is thus central to the CCP’s ideological narrative of the reform era, even as critics abroad continue to decry China’s alleged rule of law shortcomings and pine for greater change (see Trevaskes’s essay in the present volume). Both the Party and its critics base their perspectives on an assumption that whatever legal order existed prior to the Revolution was destroyed or suspended, but not replaced, during the subsequent three decades. Both narratives make this explicit in claiming that no law functioned at all during the ‘long Cultural Revolution’ (1966–76). Unfortunately, such breathless teleological accounts misjudge and misconstrue the Maoist legal system that actually existed and functioned between 1949 and 1978.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
5. NINTH 7. NIGHT 17. PHOENIX 13. DIRGE ILLUSTRATIONS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1