Updates: Flora Sapio has comments and links on the newly released CCP Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment.
And further updates HERE
Debate about China's Communist Party and the rule of law is sharp. Prof. Randall Peerenboom emphasizes in a new paper the steady progress in creating an ordinary order. Call it rule of law light. Prof. Eva Pils sharply criticizes him, saying he does not recognize that the deeply un-democratic Communist Part still operates outside the law. Peerenboom rebuts and Pils sur-rebuts.
Meanwhile the Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers highlights instances of Chinese lawyers facing detention and arrests.
Flora Sapio details the current state of the law governing the Chinese CP. - gwc
Forgotten Archipelagoes: Chinese Communist Party Standards on Integrity and Self-Restraint - comment.
by Flora Sapio
The Chinese Communist Party Standards on Integrity and Self Restraint (the Standards - here, in Chinese) were adopted by the CCP Central Committee on October 12, together with the CCP Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments (here, in Chinese). This post offers a short and very simple commentary on the Standards.
Together with the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment, the Standards are one of the most important pieces of Party legislation. The Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment define certain conducts as violations of Party discipline and specify the punishment associated with each one of them. The Standards, as they were enacted in 1997 (here - Chinese) and amended in February 2010 (here - in Chinese), aimed at "regulating the honest performance of official duties" (规范廉政从政行为).
As I have explained elsewhere, the Standards did more than specify a set of principles of conducts Party cadres should have followed: they proscribed a broad range of behaviors. Most of the behaviors proscribed by the Standards however duplicated conducts defined as criminal offenses by the Criminal Law of the PRC. The overlaps between Party legislation and the Criminal Law were among the factors that allowed a considerable discretion in the punishment of erring cadres. Overlaps were not entirely inconsistent with the rules on inner-Party law making, as these rules were effective until recently. Between 1990 and 2012, intra-Party rule making was regulated by the CCP Regulations on the procedure to enact intra-Party rules (for trial implementation). This document did not pose any requirements about consistency between Party rules and regulations and the state law.
And further updates HERE
Debate about China's Communist Party and the rule of law is sharp. Prof. Randall Peerenboom emphasizes in a new paper the steady progress in creating an ordinary order. Call it rule of law light. Prof. Eva Pils sharply criticizes him, saying he does not recognize that the deeply un-democratic Communist Part still operates outside the law. Peerenboom rebuts and Pils sur-rebuts.
Meanwhile the Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers highlights instances of Chinese lawyers facing detention and arrests.
Flora Sapio details the current state of the law governing the Chinese CP. - gwc
Forgotten Archipelagoes: Chinese Communist Party Standards on Integrity and Self-Restraint - comment.
by Flora Sapio
The Chinese Communist Party Standards on Integrity and Self Restraint (the Standards - here, in Chinese) were adopted by the CCP Central Committee on October 12, together with the CCP Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments (here, in Chinese). This post offers a short and very simple commentary on the Standards.
Together with the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment, the Standards are one of the most important pieces of Party legislation. The Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment define certain conducts as violations of Party discipline and specify the punishment associated with each one of them. The Standards, as they were enacted in 1997 (here - Chinese) and amended in February 2010 (here - in Chinese), aimed at "regulating the honest performance of official duties" (规范廉政从政行为).
As I have explained elsewhere, the Standards did more than specify a set of principles of conducts Party cadres should have followed: they proscribed a broad range of behaviors. Most of the behaviors proscribed by the Standards however duplicated conducts defined as criminal offenses by the Criminal Law of the PRC. The overlaps between Party legislation and the Criminal Law were among the factors that allowed a considerable discretion in the punishment of erring cadres. Overlaps were not entirely inconsistent with the rules on inner-Party law making, as these rules were effective until recently. Between 1990 and 2012, intra-Party rule making was regulated by the CCP Regulations on the procedure to enact intra-Party rules (for trial implementation). This document did not pose any requirements about consistency between Party rules and regulations and the state law.
No comments:
Post a Comment