【新唐人2013年01月18日讯】由大陆《财经》杂志主办的第3届财经法治论坛，16号在北京发布“中国司法改革年度报告（2012）”，并举行第4次司法改革学术研讨会，大陆多位法学专家和律师出席。学者提出，大陆司法改革关键，是要推动司法独立，让司法独立成为政治改革的突破口。学者并且提出“撤销地方政法委”。原“中国政法大学”校长江平表示：要铲除司法不能独立的土壤。
“中国人民公安大学”教授崔敏在开幕演讲中，强调司法独立的重要性，并指大陆的问题是“党大于法，往往变成一把手专权，甚至一把手专政”。
崔敏认为，要推动司法独立，首先要撤销地方的中共政法委。
而“中国人民大学国际关系学院”政治学系教授张鸣则表示，与其说是政法委控制司法，不如说是党委在控制。
中国人民大学教授张鸣：“我觉得其实没有政法委他们也难以独立。党委也一样可以控制司法。一样的。不是说非要政法委。政法委实际上没有他们想像中那么大权力。我觉得还是党委在控制。政法委对法治建设，司法独立是一个妨碍。但是其实它对于整个司法，或者公检法这三个系统的操控，远远没有党委那么强。”
除此之外，“中国人民大学行政管理学系”主任毛寿龙表示，他所了解的政法委还没那么强大，政法委实际上是一个协调机构。
中国人民大学教授毛寿龙：“即使撤了它，还有其他机构来管这个事情。现在法院本身的行政化，检察院本身的行政化，公安机关自己的非司法因素，这些东西问题更大。都听上级的，听领导的。法官也是一样，都是听院长的，院长听上级的。检察院也一样。它本身就是一个行政体系。”
那么如何改变“党在法上”的情况？
毛寿龙：“就是改变党，改变政治制度，搞个竞选。像台湾一样，民进党和国民党竞争，司法不就独立了吗？”
“中国政法大学”副教授王建勋，和“北京理工大学法学院”教授徐昕主张，让司法独立成为政改的突破口。他们认为，司法独立在政改领域带来震荡最小，可避免暴力革命，也可减少改革阻力，并且较容易达成共识。
另外，“中国体改研究会公共政策研究部”特约研究员吴稼祥指出，大陆目前的反腐败是“扬汤止沸”，要“釜底抽薪”就要解决国家权力来源，如选举。
不久前，资深媒体人李大同对《美国之音》表示，中国的政治体制改革就是要“分权”。向社会分权，向议会分权，向法律分权。
向法律分权就是还司法的独立性，彻底扭转目前“法院要接受党的绝对领导”这样的封建专制意识。李大同认为，现在中国政改的阻力，在于中共高层的第一考虑是“共产党能否永远执政”。
在目前共产党一党专制的制度下，财经论坛的学者们呼吁司法独立，分权政治，政党政治，已经触及到共产党的底线。毛寿龙表示，共产党不可能允许实现这些目标。
中国人民大学教授毛寿龙：“不可能。不把你抓起来已经不错了。”
“中国政法大学”的终身教授江平说，司法独立的提出只是第一步。最重要的是，要铲除司法不能独立的土壤，如果这样的土壤还存在，司法独立不过是无根之木，不能长久。
“北京大学法学院”教授贺卫方则指出，大陆司法改革过去10年处于停顿的原因，是司法改革目标不清晰，宪政、三权分立、司法独立“都不让提”。
张鸣表示，中共现在这个“不肯改革的体制”，就是阻碍司法独立的障碍。
采访编辑/秦雪 后制/肖颜
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.
