Another Justice—Litigation Masters in the Chinese Legal Story

in Ming Qing Yanjiu
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


Ronald Dworkin offered the legal theory which is known as a “chain enterprise”. According to this theory, throughout history, judges have, collectively, created a “law” that was designed to fulfil a specific purpose. Those judges can be seen as co-authors who, together, develop a chain-story. As such they not only create freely but also are constrained by the story made by authors, in this case judges, who have come before them. The law created by Chinese traditional judges is another case: compared with the judges mentioned by Ronald Dworkin, they have relatively narrower parameters of discretion in which they may implement a legal sentence. The limited amount of discretion available to an individual judge is due to the way in which, traditionally, the legal framework has been designed. The fact that traditional Chinese law was first conceived of as a penal code leaves little room for a judge to subjectively interpret a statute. Furthermore, because law is representative of the authority of the government, i.e. the emperor, any misinterpretation will be considered as a challenge to the supreme power. Conversely, while judges are bound by restrictive parameters with regard to the interpretation of the law, a Chinese litigation master (Songshi) who wishes to receive a favorable outcome for his client must be willing to challenge a judge’s narrow interpretation of the law. Conversely, while judges are bound by restrictive parameters with regard to the interpretation of the law, a Songshi who wishes to receive a favorable outcome for his client must be willing to challenge a judge’s narrow interpretation of the law. According to Stanley Fish’s articles that question Ronald Dworkin and Owen Fiss’ ideas about law, Fish construes that, since law is made of language, law is open to interpretations that cannot be constrained by any rules or any particular legal purposes. Stanley Fish’s idea can also be applied to the analysis of the stories of Songshi in traditional Chinese literature. The legal opinions of Songshi in traditional Chinese literature can be regarded as an unexpected event that calls for revision of the standardized concept of law propagated in legal stories. Although they are not welcome, neither by the officials and nor by society, their existence is still a phenomenon representing another version of justice different from the standardized concept of justice and can be seen as a de-structural power to the government. Hence, in this present paper the language and strategy applied by Songshi in Chinese legal stories will be analysed to see how they refute legal judgments and challenge the standardized concept of justice.

  • DworkinRonald Law’s Empire 1986 Cambridge, MA Harvard UP

  • DworkinRonald LedwonLenora “How Law is Like Literature” Law and Literature—Text and Theory 1996 New York Garland

  • FishStanley “Working on the Chain Gang” Doing What Comes Naturally—Change Rhetoric and the Practice of theory in Literary and Legal Studies 1989 London Duke UP

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FissOwen LevinsonSanfordMaillouxSteven “Objectivity and Interpretation” Interpreting Law and Literature—A Hermeneutic Reader 1991 IL Northwestern UP

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HartH. L. A The Concept of Law 1994 Second edition New York Oxford UP

  • HartH. L. A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” Jurisprudence and Philosophy 1983 New York Oxford UP

  • MacauleyMelissa Social Power and Legal Culture: Litigation Masters in Late Imperial China 1998 California Stanford UP

  • RawlsJohn The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” 2002 Cambridge, MA Harvard UP

  • Van GulikRobert The Poisoned Bride and Other Judge Dee Mysteries 2001 New Albion Press

  • ZitoAngela Of Body and Brush—Grand Sacrifice as Text / Performance in Eighteenth-Century China 1998 University Of Chicago Press

  • 安遙時編 《包公案》 2005 臺北 台灣古籍出版社

  • 仲舒 《春秋繁露》 2007 臺北 三民書局

  • 〈訟師秘本與惡訟師的形象——《珥筆肯綮》的分析——訟師在《珥筆肯綮》中的形象〉,嚴雅美譯。「明清司法運作中的權力與文化」學術研討會 夫馬進 2005 10 13–15 臺北 中央研究院歷史語言研究所主辦

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 〈明清時代的訟師和訴訟制度〉,載《明清時代的民事審判與民事契約》 夫馬進 1998 法律出版社

  • 〈訟師秘本の世界〉,收入小野和子編,《明末清初の社會と文化》 夫馬進 1996 京都 京都大學人文科學研究所

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 立新翰信 糾葛,訟師與中國古代法律文化 浙江大學學報人文社會科學版 2003 11 第 33 卷第 6

  • 成康 中國租界史 1991 上海 社會科學出版社

  • 〈宋元時代的法制與審判機構——《元典章》的時代背景與社會背景〉, 載楊一凡總主編,《中國法制史考證》丙篇,第3卷,「日本學者考證中國法制史重要成果選譯‧宋遼西夏元卷」 宮崎市定 2003 北京 中國社會科學出版社 1 121

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 宇聰 淺析中國古代訟師的功過—為中國古代訟師正名 中歐法學院 2012 級經濟法學

  • 衛方 力、衛方 中國的司法傳統及其近代化 載《 20 世紀的中國:學術與社會》(法學卷) 2004 山東人民出版社

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 源盛 中國傳統法制與思想 1998 臺北 五南出版社

  • 安國傳 古文孝經 1985 北京 中華書局

  • 作武 為訟師辯護—兼與梁治平先生商榷 載《比較法研究》 1997 03

  • 澎生 明清訟師的興起及其官司致勝術 發表於中央研究院歷史語言研究所主辦,「中國傳統法律文化的形成與轉變」研討會 2006 12 14–16 臺北 中央研究院歷史語言研究所

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 萬里 大明律集解附例三十卷 1969 臺北 臺灣學生書局

  • 元史 1962 台北 啟明書局

  • 上海商務印書館編譯所 《大清新編法令—修律師大臣伍庭芳等奏呈刑事民事訴訟法則》 2011 上海 商務印書館編譯所

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 麟瑞(佚名) 滿清四大訟師 2003 台南 世一

  • 麟瑞(佚名) 《中國四大惡訟師傳奇》 編譯高天平 2003 1 中國華僑出版社

  • 麟瑞 《中國古典文學—四大惡訟演義》 1983 2 文化圖書公司 (佚名)

    • Export Citation
  • 揖唐 《上海租界問題》 1924 商務印書館

    • Export Citation
  • 有孚 《一得偶談》初集 嘉慶十年序,刊本

  • 《清稗類鈔》 中華書局出版社 1984

  • 鴻烈 《中國法律發達史》 1988 臺北 臺灣商務印書館

    • Export Citation
  • 賀秀三 〈中國法文化的考察〉,載《明清時期的民事審判與民間契約》 1998 法律出版社 王亞新等譯

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 賀秀三 《明清時期的民事審判與民間契約》 1998 北京 法律出版社 王亞新、梁治平編

  • WongJing王晶 Hail the Judge (九品芝麻官, Jiu Pin Zhi Ma Guan) 1994

    • Export Citation
  • ToJohnnie Justice, My Foot! (審死官, Shan Si Guan) 1992 (杜琪峰 Du Qi-feng)

    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Please see the preface in van Gulik 2001.

  • 6

    Please see 邱澎生 2006.

  • 9

    Macauley 1998: 101.

  • 25

    Dworkin 1986: 39.

  • 27

    Fish 1989: 89–90.

  • 28

    Fish 1989: 98.

  • 37

    Macauley 1998: 279.

  • 42

    Please see Hart 1983.

  • 46

    In 1906Shen Jia-ben and Wu Ting-fang proposed a draft but it was not realized because of the revolution. Please see 《大清新編法令—修律師大臣伍庭芳等奏呈刑事民事訴訟法則》. And then in 1912 after the Republic was established advocate as a profession was granted by the government.

  • 48

    Macauley 1998: 291.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 53 50 3
Full Text Views 171 171 0
PDF Downloads 4 4 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0