【新唐人2013年01月18日訊】由大陸《財經》雜誌主辦的第3屆財經法治論壇，16號在北京發佈「中國司法改革年度報告（2012）」，並舉行第4次司法改革學術研討會，大陸多位法學專家和律師出席。學者提出，大陸司法改革關鍵，是要推動司法獨立，讓司法獨立成為政治改革的突破口。學者並且提出「撤銷地方政法委」。原「中國政法大學」校長江平表示：要剷除司法不能獨立的土壤。
「中國人民公安大學」教授崔敏在開幕演講中，強調司法獨立的重要性，並指大陸的問題是「黨大於法，往往變成一把手專權，甚至一把手專政」。
崔敏認為，要推動司法獨立，首先要撤銷地方的中共政法委。
而「中國人民大學國際關係學院」政治學系教授張鳴則表示，與其說是政法委控制司法，不如說是黨委在控制。
中國人民大學教授張鳴：「我覺得其實沒有政法委他們也難以獨立。黨委也一樣可以控制司法。一樣的。不是說非要政法委。政法委實際上沒有他們想像中那麼大權力。我覺得還是黨委在控制。政法委對法治建設，司法獨立是一個妨礙。但是其實它對於整個司法，或者公檢法這三個系統的操控，遠遠沒有黨委那麼強。」
除此之外，「中國人民大學行政管理學系」主任毛壽龍表示，他所了解的政法委還沒那麼強大，政法委實際上是一個協調機構。
中國人民大學教授毛壽龍：「即使撤了它，還有其他機構來管這個事情。現在法院本身的行政化，檢察院本身的行政化，公安機關自己的非司法因素，這些東西問題更大。都聽上級的，聽領導的。法官也是一樣，都是聽院長的，院長聽上級的。檢察院也一樣。它本身就是一個行政體系。」
那麼如何改變「黨在法上」的情況？
毛壽龍：「就是改變黨，改變政治制度，搞個競選。像台灣一樣，民進黨和國民黨競爭，司法不就獨立了嗎？」
「中國政法大學」副教授王建勳，和「北京理工大學法學院」教授徐昕主張，讓司法獨立成為政改的突破口。他們認為，司法獨立在政改領域帶來震盪最小，可避免暴力革命，也可減少改革阻力，並且較容易達成共識。
另外，「中國體改研究會公共政策研究部」特約研究員吳稼祥指出，大陸目前的反腐敗是「揚湯止沸」，要「釜底抽薪」就要解決國家權力來源，如選舉。
不久前，資深媒體人李大同對《美國之音》表示，中國的政治體制改革就是要「分權」。向社會分權，向議會分權，向法律分權。
向法律分權就是還司法的獨立性，徹底扭轉目前「法院要接受黨的絕對領導」這樣的封建專制意識。李大同認為，現在中國政改的阻力，在於中共高層的第一考慮是「共產黨能否永遠執政」。
在目前共產黨一黨專制的制度下，財經論壇的學者們呼籲司法獨立，分權政治，政黨政治，已經觸及到共產黨的底線。毛壽龍表示，共產黨不可能允許實現這些目標。
中國人民大學教授毛壽龍：「不可能。不把你抓起來已經不錯了。」
「中國政法大學」的終身教授江平說，司法獨立的提出只是第一步。最重要的是，要剷除司法不能獨立的土壤，如果這樣的土壤還存在，司法獨立不過是無根之木，不能長久。
「北京大學法學院」教授賀衛方則指出，大陸司法改革過去10年處於停頓的原因，是司法改革目標不清晰，憲政、三權分立、司法獨立「都不讓提」。
張鳴表示，中共現在這個「不肯改革的體制」，就是阻礙司法獨立的障礙。
採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/肖顏
Forum: Law Scholars Call for Judiciary Independence
The 3rd Finance and Law Forum hosted by the mainland
’Finance’ magazine published the ‘China’s Judicial
Reform Annual Report (2012)’ on January 16th, in Beijing.
They hosted the 4th Judicial Reform Symposium as well,
and many mainland law experts and lawyers attended.
The scholars pointed that the key of the mainland judicial
reform is to promote judiciary independence,
and let the independence of the judiciary become
the breakthrough of the political reform.
They also proposed the ‘revocation
of the local Politics and Law Committees.
Former Head of China’s University of Political Science
and Law (CUPSL) suggested to eradicate the ground for judiciary dependence.
Professor from Chinese People’s Public Security University,
Cui Min, stressed in her opening speech about
the importance of the independence of the judiciary.
She also pointed out, the mainland’s problem is ‘the party is
above the law, it often becomes the leader
who has absolute power, and even dictatorship.’
Cui Min believes, to promote judiciary independence, first
the local CCP (China’s Communist Party) Politics
and Law Committees (PLCs) must be revoked.
However, Zhang Ming, Professor from People’s University
of China’ Institute of International Relations and Political Science had another suggestion.
Prof. Zhang said, it is the party committee which controls
the administration of justice, rather than the PLCs
Zhang Ming: ‘I think actually they cannot be independent
even if there is no Politics and Law Committees.
The party committee can also control the judiciary.
It is the same.
PLCs actually don’t have as much power as they imagine.
I think it is still the party committee that takes control.
The PLCs hinder the development of the rule of law,
and the independence of the judiciary.
But actually its control over the entire judicial or public
security system is far from the party committee’s control.”
Mao Shoulong, Deputy director of People’s University
of China’ Public Policy and Management also thinks
PLCs are not that powerful, and are just coordinating agencies.
Mao Shoulong: ‘Even if it is revoked, there are other
agencies which become in charge of this.
Now the Court and Procuratorate are administrative entities,
the security agencies have non-judicial factors, these issues are more problematic.
They all follow the leadership, the judges do too,
they follow the President of the Court,
and the President of the Court follows the instructions
of the leadership, so as the Procuratorate.
In and of itself this is an administrative system.’
So how to change the situation,
that the ‘Party is above the law’?
Mao Shoulong: ’It is to change the party,
and the political system, and to have elections.
Just like Taiwan, DPP (Democratic Progressive Party)
and KMT (Chinese Nationalist Party) compete, then isn’t the judiciary independent?’
Wang Jianxun, Associate Professor of CUPSL, and Xu Xin,
Professor of Beijing Institute of Technology’ School of Law, spoke on the issue too.
They advocated to let the independence of the judiciary
become a breakpoint of the political reform.
They believe that the independence of the judiciary will
bring minimum concussion to the political reform field,
and can avoid violent revolution, reduce the resistance
of reform, and is easier to reach consensus.
The special researcher of China Economic Restructuring
Research’ Public Policy Research Department, Wu Jiaxiang, had other concerns.
Wu think that now the anti-corruption in mainland China
cannot solve the fundamental problems;
thus ‘backing off’ is necessary to solve the issue
of the state power sources, such as elections.
Not long time ago, media specialist Li Datong said to VOA
that, China’s political reform is to ‘decentralize
the power’ to the society, the parliament and the law system.
To decentralize the power to the law system is to return
the independence of the judiciary, Li thinks.
And to fundamentally reverse the feudal autocratic thinking
that ‘the court should follow the party’s absolute leadership.’
Li believes that the resistance of the political reform is due
to the first CCP consideration of ‘CCP governing forever.’
Now, under the CCP’s one-party dictatorship, scholars from
Finance Forum called for the independence of the judiciary,
for decentralization of the politics and political parties,
and with that they have touched the bottom line of the CCP.
Mao Shoulong thinks the CCP will not allow
people to achieve these goals.
Mao Shoulong: ’Impossible. It is pretty good
that you are not arrested.’
Jiang Ping, Professor at CUPSL said, the judiciary
independence proposal is just the first step.
The most important thing is to eradicate the ground
for judiciary dependence.
He Weifang, Professor at Peking University’ Law School,
pointed out the reason for lack of judicial independence.
The judicial system in the last 10 years remains the same,
because the goal of the judicial reform is not clear,
and that constitutionalism, decentralization of power,
and judiciary independence are ‘not allowed to mention.’
Zhang Ming believes, the CCP ’does not want to reform,’
and this is the obstacle for judiciary independence in China.
