Article China: Supreme People’s Court Introduces New Type of Judicial Interpretation

On June 16, 2021, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) circulated a decision to amend the Provisions on the Work Concerning Judicial Interpretation. The amended judicial interpretation (JI) introduces a new type of JI—“rules”—which will be adopted to regulate the trial and enforcement activities of Chinese courts.

This is the first time the SPC has amended the provisions regulating JIs issued by the court. When they first entered into force in 2007, the provisions limited JIs to four types: “interpretations,” “provisions,” “replies,” and “decisions.” Under the amended provisions, the SPC may now issue five types of JIs for various purposes:

• “interpretations” (jie shi): regulating how to apply a specific law or how to apply laws on a specific group of cases or issues;
• “provisions” (gui ding): formulating specifications or opinions on the basis of the legislative spirit;
• “rules” (gui ze): regulating the trial and enforcement activities of the courts;
• “replies” (pi fu): replying to a request for instructions from the high people’s courts or the military courts; and
• “decisions” (jue ding): abolishing or amending existing JIs. (Decision art. 6.)

JIs issued by the SPC have legal binding force, according to the provisions. (Art. 5.) Article 104 of China’s 2015 amended Law on Legislation addresses the JIs issued by the SPC and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. According to this article, JIs are to “primarily target specific articles of laws, and be consistent with the goals, principles and significance of legislation.” The article also requires that JIs be reported for the record to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee within 30 days of promulgation.

A Supreme Court Monitor post authored by Susan Finder notes that SPC JIs are critically important to the operation of the Chinese legal system. According to the post, the SPC “focuses on judicial interpretation work for reasons connected with the slow pace and abstract language of Chinese legislation, although Chinese (and foreign) scholars, lawyers and other commentators sometimes criticize the SPC’s expansive reading of laws.”