A Study On The Standardization Of The Supreme People’s Court’s Opinions

The "opinions" of the Supreme People’s Court is a judicial document formulated by the Supreme People’s Court alone or jointly formulated by the Supreme People’s Court in conjunction with other public authorities or social groups,with the ending of"opinions" and"Guiding opinions".According to the differences in content,it can be divided into the following types:Judicial Interpretation opinions,Policy Responsive opinions,Work Guidance opinions,and opinions on judicial administrative affairs management.The "opinions" of the Supreme People’s Court has a wider scope of application than judicial interpretation.The Supreme Court can effectively undertake political decisions through "opinions",transform the highest decisions into legal discourse,and promote local courts at all levels to understand the will and goals of the ruling party in the judicial process,which is conducive to achieving governance goals;The advantages of "opinions" as a text carrier and its inexpensive production process enable it to respond quickly to reality and further refine legal and judicial interpretations.The"flexible" characteristics of "opinions" can help the Supreme Court to provide trial guidance while reserving some space for the enthusiasm of the lower court,making it easy to judicial law-making and experiment with"legislation";Finally,as the subject of formulating "opinions" is not limited,it has become an important guide for courts to cooperate with other state organs and social entities in social governance,helping to strengthen collaboration among multiple departments such as the government and the court.Through the analysis of the application of "opinions" in judicial documents,it can be seen that there are three main problems in the administration of justice in such documents:first,regarding "opinions" as the basis for adjudication;The second is that the application of "opinions" by judges is characterized by fragmentation;The third reason is that the adoption rate of "opinions" as litigation grounds is low when invoked by the parties.The reason why "opinions" has many application problems in the judiciary lies in that "opinions" is an informal legal source that does not have legal effect at the normative level but has certain factual binding force at the practical level.The existence or strength of its effectiveness is ambiguous,making judges hesitant.Based on the requirements of formal rule of law,judges often use it as a reason for adjudication or simply do not apply it to avoid causing disputes.However,due to the practicality and factual authority of the document,judges sometimes unintentionally consider the effectiveness of norms and apply it,Ultimately,"opinions" in specific applications will sometimes become like laws,sometimes without any effect,depending on the characteristics of judges and the characteristics of "opinions"themselves.Although the "opinions" of the Supreme Court is externally viewed as an internal guidance document,its internality can have a "spillover" effect due to the application of judges,affecting the rights and obligations of the parties,making it a basis for safeguarding the rights of the parties or an object of attack in the judiciary.However,due to the unclear binding force of the "opinions",There is an unequal relationship between the parties and the court in the judicial application of "opinions".Based on the differences in the function and factual binding force of different types of "opinions" the standardization of "opinions" mainly adopts the standardized path of type.The Judicial Interpretation opinions should have the actual binding force of "should be referred to" like the guiding cases.In terms of the production and issuance mechanism,it is necessary to ensure that such "opinions" must be passed by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and publicly released by the Supreme People’s Court.At the same time,it is necessary to establish a mechanism for revising and abolishing and timely transforming "opinions",so that the interpretation content of opinions with the nature of judicial interpretation can be gradually incorporated into the formal legal norm system and realize the change of opinions with the nature of judicial interpretation to judicial interpretation and law.ln current judicial practice,it should still be applied as a reason for adjudication.Judges can adopt the reasoning model of "law+opinions",avoiding using "opinions" as the sole reasoning basis.Policy Responsive opinions have the binding force of "can be referenced".Typical cases can be used to reduce the fragmentation phenomenon in judicial practice,and at the same time,guiding cases can play a good role in policy response.In addition,the court system can also promote the real-time synchronization of the value orientation of judges and such opinions through internal training to promote the implementation of such opinions.In judicial applications,judges can bring conclusions to Policy Responsive opinions for verification,or use policy responsive opinions as important reference materials for judges when applying legal interpretation methods,guiding judges to actively interpret the law and ensuring that decisions meet the requirements of political and social effects.As for the mandatory and normative provisions in Work Guidance opinions,judges should follow them.The parties concerned can consider the judge’s failure to follow them as an objective reason for appeal or appeal.The judge of second instance or retrial should review them and respond accordingly to specific situations.For purely guiding content,the implementation of the judge’s performance can be used as a judge’s performance evaluation indicator to fully exert its guiding function.