Undang-undang China

Gagasan undang-undang

Perkataan untuk undang-undang dalam bahasa Cina klasik ialah fǎ. Sifat Cina untuk fǎ menandakan makna "adil", "lurus" dan "keadilan", berasal dari airnya radical. Ia juga menjalankan segi "piawai, ukuran, dan model". Derk Bodde and Clarence Morris held that the concept of fǎ had an association with yi (義: "social rightness"). Yan Fu, dalam terjemahan bahasa Cinanya dari De l'esprit des lois Montesquieu diterbitkan pada 1913, memberi amaran kepada para pembacanya tentang perbezaan di antara fǎ China dan undang-undang Barat: "Perkataan 'undang-undnag' dalam bahasa-bahasa Barat mempunyai empat terjemahan berlainan i "rites", "decorum"), fǎ (法: "undang-undang manusia") dan zhì (制: "kawalan").
Sebuah istilah yang mendahului fǎ was xíng (刑), yang terdahulunya mungkin merujukkan pada pancungan. Xíng kemudian berkembang menjadi suatu istilah umum untuk undang-undang yang berkaitan dengan hukuman jenayah. Sejarah awal Shang Shu merakam bentuk-bentuk terawal "lima hukuman": bercacah, pencacatan, pengembirian, pengudungan, dan kematian. Sekali undang-undang ditulis menjadi wujud, makna xíng telah dipanjangkan untuk memasuki bukan hanya hukuman tetapi juga mana-manan larangan negara yang pelanggarannya akan menyebabkan dalam hukuman. Pada zaman moden, xíng dapat difahami dari segi hukum banduan atau hukum jenayah. Suatu contoh kegunaan klasik xíng adalah xíng bu (刑部: "Jabatan Hukuman") untuk jabatan undang-undang atau keadilan di kemaharajaan China.
Dua sekolah falsafah Cina utama dibincang di bawah, Konfusianisme dan Legalism, secara kuat mempengaruhi gagasan undang-undang di China. Secara ringkas, di bawah Konfusianisme, negara seharusnya mengetuai rakyat dengan sifat baik dan oleh itu mencipta suatu erti kemaluan yang akan mencegah kelakuan buruk. Di bawah Legalism, undang-undang seharusnya di awam mengisytiharkan piawai kelakuan dibelakangi oleh pemaksaan negara. Ketegangan di antara dua sistem ini yang Konfusianisme tergantung pada tradisi yang membuat pemimpin ketua rumah tangga seluruh China sementara Legalism membuat undang-undang piawai yang maharaja jua terpaksa mematuh. Faktor umum adalah bahawa kedua-dua yang tersebut ke peringkat berlainan suatu tanggapan paternalistik negara, yang mengetahui lebih daripada rakyatnya dan membuat undnag-undang untuk melindungi mereka. Konsep ini berterusan di sepanjang zaman imperial, ke dalam zaman republik, dan masih dapat dilihat bertindak hari ini.
Tidak seperti tamadun utama lain di mana undang-undang tulisan dijalankan dengan mulia dan sering dihargai pada asal-usul ramalan, undang-undang di China awal dilihat dari segi sekular asli dan pada kemunculan permulaannya disambut dengan permusuhan oleh ahli fikir Confucian sebagai penandaan kemerosotan akhlak serius, suatu pelanggaran keakhlakan manusia, dan juga suatu gangguan urutan kosmik keseluruhannya. Mengikut sejarah, kesedaran orang dan penerimaan kebiasaan etik telah dibentuk lebih lanjut oleh pengaruh merebak adat dan kegunaan hak milik dan dengan menanam petunjuk akhlak daripada dengan mana-mana sistem dijadikan undang-undang secara rasmi. Maharaja-maharaja terdahulu sungguhpun mencakup gagasan Legalist sebagai cara menggunakan kawalan ke atas wilayah dan penduduk mereka yang besar dan membesar. Proses ini disatukan dengan kepercayaan Cina tradisional pada urutan kosmos, memegang bahawa kelakuan betul adalah kelakuan selaras dengan jawapan sesuai dimuatkan oleh fǎ. Xíng menyatakan kos potensi pada individu menggunakan mereak dan mengenakan denda untuk tindakan ini.
Zaman kemaharajaan dicirikan terutamanya oleh konsep undang-undang sebagai berkhidmat negara, sebagai cara mengenakan kawalan ke atas kewarganegaraan. Sewaktu lewat dinasti Qing ada usaha untuk membaharukan kod-kod undang-undang terutamanya dengna mengimpot kod Jerman sedikit pengubahsuaian. Usaha ini berterusan dan telah diluaskan sewaktu zaman republikan mengakibatkan Perlembagaan Sementara 1912 yang memasuki gagasan kesamaan di bawah undang-undang, hak asasi untuk wanita, dan hak lebih lebar untuk warga negara vis-à-vis kerajaan. Permulaan zaman komunis pada mulanya menggulingkan perkembangan hak individu dengna konsep asas mengembalikan yang pada alat negara. Selepas Revolusi Kebudayaan membinasakan taraf profesional intelektual dan legal, ia mengambil hingga took 1982 untuk gagasan hak individu untuk menimbul semula sebagai pengaruh penting pada undang-undang China.
Perlembagaan kini, dicipta di 1982, menyatakan dalam Rencana V bahawa tiada pertubuhan atau individu adalah di atas undang-undang dan dalam Rencana III membuat Kongres Rakyat dan pentadbiran negara bertanggung jawab kepada rakyat, membuka jalan untuk usaha kemudian untuk membenarkan penguatkuasaan hak asasi individu. Pesej Administrative Litigation Law of 1987 mencipta jalan keluar untuk para individu dari tindakan kerajaan yang sembarangan, suatu lebuh yang terdahulunya tidak ada. Sungguhpun lazim berduduk dalam terhadap tindakan undang-undang, litigasi dalam mahkamah China telah bertambah secara dramatis, terutamanya dalam tahun baru-baru ini. Kelemahan berterusan mahkamah diakibatkan dari bergantung kepada kerajaan tempatan untuk sokongan kewangan dan pihak kuat kuasa menjejaskan keberkesanan remedi-remedi ini tetapu ini juga telah bermula untuk berubah dengan permulaan China untuk menambah latihan undang-undang dan keprofesionalan bidang kehakiman. Satu avenue perayuan individu dari tindakan kerajaan yang berterusan menjadi penting adalah adat xinfang atau petisyen oleh warga negara dan pegawai individu untuk perubahan. Kegunaan berlanjutan lebar xinfang mencerminkan nyata bahawa banyak pegawai masih mampu menghindari hukuman undang-undang dan penghindaran yang menjadi asas sistem undang-undang, dan juga kebolehan pegawai untuk secara peribadi bercampur tangan untuk mengubah akibat yang tidak adil. Baru-baru ini xinfang telah di diinstitusikan ke suatu peringkat dengan kerajaan pusat memandat bahawa setiap peringkat pentadbiran menubuhkan suatu pejabat xinfang untuk mengendalikan petisyen dan melapor mereka ke pangkat-pangkat tinggi. Jawapan ini mengikut penggunaan kuasa peribadi jelas bertentangan dengan gagasan kedaulatan undang-undang, dan lebih dahsyat, sesetengah cendiakiawan telah menyatakan bahawa xinfang kini berfungsi sebagai suatu sistem kutipan bermaklumat untuk kerajaan daripada suatu mekanisme kajian semula berkesan.

Confucianism dan Legalisme

Confucianism and Legalism are two major Classical legal theories or philosophies developed during the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, a time that saw the most impressive proliferation of new ideas and philosophies in Chinese history. While both theories call for governmental hierarchy, they differ drastically in their views of human potential and the preferred means to achieve political order. Nevertheless, both theories have influenced and continue to influence the development of cultural, social, and legal norms in China.
The basic premise of Confucianism is the idea that human beings are fundamentally good. With this optimistic view on human potential, Confucius advocates for ruling through li – traditional customs, mores, and norms – which allow people to have a sense of shame and become humane people with good character, rather than through government regulations and penal law. The idea is that people will internalize the acceptable norms and only take proper actions. This will not only lead to a harmonious social order, but it will also provide the additional benefit of improving an individual’s inner character and the overall quality of the society. In contrast, codified laws require external compliance, and people may abide by the laws without fully understanding the reason for compliance. As such, a social order achieved through formal laws does not come with the additional benefit of better citizenry. It is worth noting, however, that even Confucius did not advocate for the elimination of formal laws. Rather, according to Confucius, laws should be used minimally and reserved only for those that insist on pursuing one’s self-interests without taking into account the well being of the society.
As Confucius rejects the general use of formal laws to achieve social order, what lies vital to Confucius’ theory is the willing participation by citizens of the society to search for commonly accepted, cooperative solutions. In addition to willing participation of citizens, there must also be grounds or bases upon which commonly acceptable solutions can be arrived at - the concept known as li. Li is commonly understood as a set of culturally and socially valued norms that provide guidance to proper behaviors that will ultimately lead to a harmonious society. These norms are not fixed or unchangeable over time but rather a reflection of what is accepted at a particular time in a particular context. When conflicts arise, the li have to be applied and interpreted to produce a just result and restore the harmony of the society. However, in the absence of any procedural safeguard afforded by codified laws, interpretation of li is subject to abuse.
Recognizing that people in a society hold diverse interests, Confucius charges the ruler with the responsibility to unify these interests and maintain social order. This is not done by dictatorship but by setting an example. Therefore, a ruler needs not to force his people to behave properly. Instead, the ruler needs only to make himself respectful, and the people will be induced and enlightened by his superior virtues to follow his example – an ideal known as wuwei. Nevertheless, the ruler must know and understand the li to be able to create solutions to conflict and problems the society faces. As the people are to follow the moral standards and example set by the ruler, to a large extent, the quality of the ruler determines the quality of the political order.
In contrast to Confucius’ li-based theory, the Legalism advocates the utilization of codified laws and harsh punishment to achieve social order. This is due to the legalists’ belief that all human beings are born evil and self-interested. Therefore, if left unrestrained, people would engage in selfish behavior which will undoubtedly lead to social unrest. To cure this defect and force people to behave morally, the only way, believed the legalists, is to publicly promulgate clearly written laws and impose harsh punishments.
Realizing that the abilities of rulers are often limited and that reliance on the ruler’s ability and judgment often leads to adverse results, the legalists designed a system in which the law is run by the state, not the ruler. This ensures that the laws will be applied impartially without the interference of personal bias of the ruler or ones who are responsible for applying the laws. It also makes it irrelevant whether the ruler has superior abilities. This non-action promoted by the legalists is their understanding of the concept of wuwei, which is different from the Confucians’ understanding of the same concept. Notwithstanding such an understanding, the ruler, like in Confucianism, has the ultimate authority to decide what the law should be. Therefore, like Confucianism, Legalism is subject to abuse as well. In fact, the Qin emperor implemented strict laws and extremely harsh punishments without taking into account mitigating circumstances even for insignificant crimes. For example, books were burned and people holding different ideals were buried alive. While the Qin emperor successfully instilled fear and respect for law into the minds of his people, the harshness of the law led to his quick demise after only 14 years of reigning over China.
In summary, although both Confucianism and Legalism were developed in a period of turmoil and both were aimed at the re-unification of the country, the two theories went opposite directions with one advocating for and one against the use of formal laws to achieve social order. What the two theories have in common is their concession of the ultimate authority to the ruler, who remained above and beyond the li or law. It is true that neither theory is ideal in achieving a social order. Nevertheless, both theories have had a significant impact on the cultural and legal development in China, and their influence remains visible today.

Confucianisation of law

The significant influence of the Legalist tradition in Chinese law has historically been overlooked. Although the Confucian ideology provided the fundamentals for the substance of traditional law, the Legalist school constructed the important framework of the traditional legal system. The Han dynasty retained the basic legal system established under the Qin but modified some of the harsher aspects in line with the Confucian philosophy of social control.
The Han dynasty formally recognized four sources of law: lü (律: "codified laws"), ling (令: "the emperor's order"), ke ("statutes inherited from previous dynasties") and bi ("precedents"), among which ling has the highest binding power over the other three. Most legal professionals were not lawyers but generalists trained in philosophy and literature. The local, classically trained, Confucian gentry played a crucial role as arbiters and handled all but the most serious local disputes.
Eventually, the incorporation of the essentials of Confucianist li into legal codes occurred with this Confucian conception dominating ancient Chinese law. Ch'ü concludes that the gradual process of Confucianisation of law was the most significant development in the legal system of China prior to 20th century modernization. The line between ruling by moral influence and ruling by punishment was not always clearly delineated. For example, li could be enforced by moral influence and legal means. The metamorphosis of li into law depended on its widespread and unvaried acceptance by society.
Although the codification of law was largely completed by the Tang Code of CE 624, throughout the centuries the Confucian foundations of the Tang Code were retained, and indeed with some aspects of it strengthened by the later dynasties.
The Confucian notion that morality and self-discipline was more important than legal codes caused many historians, such as Max Weber, until the mid-20th century to conclude that law was not an important part of Imperial Chinese society. This notion, however, has come under extreme criticism and is no longer the conventional wisdom among Sinologists, who have concluded that Imperial China had an elaborate system of both criminal and civil law which was comparable to anything found in Europe.
During the Qing dynasty, criminal justice was based on extremely detailed Great Qing Legal Code. One element of the traditional Chinese criminal justice system is the notion that criminal law has a moral purpose, one of which is to get the convicted to repent and see the error of his ways. In the traditional Chinese legal system, a person could not be convicted of a crime unless he has confessed. This often led to the use of torture, in order to extract the necessary confession. These elements still influence modern Chinese views toward law. All capital offenses were reported to the capital and required the personal approval of the emperor.
There was no civil code separate from the criminal code, which led to the now discredited belief that traditional Chinese law had no civil law. More recent studies have demonstrated that most of the magistrates' legal work was in civil disputes, and that there was an elaborate system of civil law which used the criminal code to establish torts.

Modernization

The introduction and translation of legal texts into Chinese is believed to have been started under the auspices of Lin Zexu in 1839. More systematic introduction of Western law together with other Western sciences started with the establishment of Tongwen Guan in 1862. The major efforts in translation of Western law that continued until the 1920s prepared the building blocks for modern Chinese legal language and Chinese law. Legal translation was very important from 1896 to 1936 during which period the Chinese absorbed and codified their version of Western laws. These efforts were assisted by the medium of the Japanese legal language and law developed in Japan during the Meiji period which involved in large part Japanese translation of European Continental laws.
In the late Qing dynasty there was a concerted effort to establish legal codes based on European models. Because of the German victory in the Franco-Prussian War and because Japan was used as the model for political and legal reform, the law codes which were adopted were modeled closely after that of Germany.
Attitudes toward the traditional Chinese legal system changed markedly in the late-20th century. Most Chinese and Westerners of the early 20th century regarded the traditional Chinese legal system as backward and barbaric. However, extensive research into China's traditional legal system has caused attitudes to become more favorable in the late-20th and early 21st centuries. Researchers of the early and mid-20th century tended to compare the traditional Chinese legal system to then contemporary systems, finding the former to be backward. However, more recent research compared the 18th century Chinese legal system to European systems of the 18th century, resulting in a far more positive view of traditional Chinese law.
The Department of Punishment was changed to fa bu (法部: "Department of Law") in the early 1900s legal reforms.

Hak undang-undang

China Klasik tidak mempunyai persamaan semantik dengan konsep "hak". Gagasan hak diperkenalkan ke China dari Barat. Terjemahannya sebagai quanli (权利) dicipta oleh William Alexander Parsons Martin pada 1864, dalam terjemahannya Elements of International Law Henry Wheaton.