Category Archives: About Me

and was the first person to engage in a close analysis of its operations. She is currently an editor with the Practical Law Company, the leading legal know-how company, and operates at the intersection between legal practice and academics. Before joining the Practical Law Company, she taught Chinese law and other subjects in the Law Department of the City University of Hong Kong, before putting her knowledge to work in the China practice group of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, one of the first international law firms to recognize the importance of the China market. She subsequently experienced the collapse of a major US law firm (Heller Ehrman) during the financial crisis, as well as issues faced by Hong Kong market regulators (the Hong Kong Stock Exchange).

She had the good fortune to study with three of the early pioneers of Chinese legal studies: Jerome Cohen, R. Randle Edwards, and Stanley Lubman and to have many leading practitioners and legal academics among her classmates at Harvard Law School (J.D.) and Columbia Law School (LL.M).

Susan Finder speaks and reads (Mandarin) Chinese and Russian and some German.

Decoding the Supreme People’s Court’s Services and Safeguards Opinions

I recently published a short article on the Perspectives blog of the  New York University School of Law U.S. -Asia Law Institute, with the same name as this post, linked here.  I am posting a “homemade” PDF version temporarily and will replace it when an official one is available. I am close to finishing a longer version of the same article. The research on which this article is based draws on discussions with many persons who cannot be thanked by name and others who will be whenever the longer version is published.

About a year ago, I published an article on the same blog, entitled Why I Research China’s Supreme People’s Court.   The PDF version is available here.

Many thanks to Katherine Wilhelm, Executive Director of the U.S. -Asia Law Institute, for her skillful editing of both articles.

Supreme People’s Court Monitor & the China International Commercial Court

On August 24 and 25, 2022,  the  Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a China International Commercial Court International Commercial Expert Committee (Expert Committee) reappointment ceremony and seminar on cross-border dispute resolution.   The SPC reappointed my former colleague, Emeritus Professor Peter Malanczuk and me to the International Commercial Expert Committee (Expert Committee) of the China International Commercial Court (CICC).   For those who read Chinese, the CICC website has posted the speeches or articles of those who presented. I’ll summarize the proceedings in slightly more detail than the official English reports. Then I’ll follow separately with a few comments on the ceremony and seminar and my experience as a CICC expert thus far.

Professor Malanczuk and I joined 21 other CICC experts in the hybrid reappointment ceremony, with many residing in Beijing attending in person.  All others, including Professor Malanczuk and I, attended online.

President Zhou Qiang and Vice President Tao Kaiyuan of the Supreme People’s Court spoke at the reappointment ceremony, over which Executive Vice President He Rong presided. Senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Commerce, National Reform and Development Commission, and China Council for the Advancement of Foreign Trade spoke thereafter.  Excerpts from their official speeches are available here.

Representatives of the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference then spoke, followed by Expert Committee members Professor Zhang Yuejiao, Rimsky Yuen SC (former Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Co-Chair of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)), and Sir William Blair, retired head of the London Commercial Court.

Professor Zhang provided an overview of the first four years of CICC, including some of her thoughts and suggestions,  She pointed out that due to inadequacies in the mechanism (organizational establishment)  [inadequate] budget, and the impact of pandemic controls, the role of the members of the Expert Committee is limited, few opportunities have been created to enable members to interact and the members to interact with CICC judges,  and finally, foreign experts have rarely participated. She had a number of suggestions, including that the expertise of members should be better used and that training sessions be organized at which members would speak.

Rimsky Yuen spoke about the CICC facilitating greater interactions between the Chinese judiciary and judiciaries of other jurisdictions, such as participating in the activities of the Standing Forum of International Commercial Courts. As the Co-Chair of HKIAC, he thanked the SPC for including HKIAC in the One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism.

Following the reappointment ceremony, the first panel addressed “the Latest Developments and Frontier Issues of  International Commercial Courts,” with a mix of Chinese and foreign speakers, including Justice Tao Kaiyuan.

The last group of speakers on the first day, for the most part, Chinese expert committee members, discussed resolving complex commercial disputes. Judge Wang Shumei provided a very useful summary of Chinese judicial practice in complex cases.

On the second day, the first session, “Functioning within the “One-stop” Diversified International Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism” had presentations from all the members of the CICC’s One-Stop Mechanism.

I spoke as part of the last panel, on civil legal assistance, which was chaired by Professor Lu Song. Judge Shen Hongyu, deputy head of the #4 Civil Division and CICC judge,  gave closing observations.  I gave an update on trends in civil international judicial assistance and their challenges. Among the many speakers on my panel was Judge Gao Xiaoli, who gave an update on what the SPC is doing in judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters. She included statistics and an explanation of the platform that enables the SPC and Ministry of Justice (the designated Central Authority in most judicial assistance treaties and conventions) to communicate more quickly.

Judge Wang Shumei (head of the #4 Civil Division and CICC judge) and Justice Tao Kaiyuan gave concluding remarks.

Comments

Reappointment ceremony and seminar

I was disappointed that Beijing and central institution Covid-19 restrictions did not permit those of us living outside of mainland China to participate in person.  In my view, the in-person event in 2018 was important for all, as well as for me personally.  I surmise that for the SPC organizers, it was important that at least some portion of the people from outside China appointed as experts appear in person because it demonstrated to other institutions and the SPC leadership that the foreign/offshore experts valued the appointment.   It was also an opportunity for people to connect, albeit briefly. So the experts could meet other experts, the CICC judges, and others attending the ceremony on that hot August morning in Beijing.  For me personally, it was an opportunity to experience a high-level official event on-site, observe the dynamics, and connect with others. A Zoom event cannot substitute for an in-person meeting but in the current circumstances, it was the only alternative.

The reappointment ceremony and seminar had takeaways for the careful observer.  The speeches of the officials of the “relevant central institutions” (有关中央部门) as actually delivered appeared to reflect the official discourse of the institution involved.  I surmise some of the discourse may have been less sharp if the person anticipated he would see the foreign experts in person.  Justice Tao Kaiyuan’s presentation sent needed signals about the ongoing importance of openness, the role of the CICC in integrating China with international practice, and the role of CICC expert committee members as bridges to the international commercial world.

Of course, I found the presentations and comments by SPC judges particularly significant. As for the other seminar presentations, the ones I found most interesting were the ones in which I learned something new and did not require me to use my homemade  “useful content detector” to find the nuggets of insights inside layers of slogans.  There were quite a few, but not all, that fit that bill.

The Chinese versions of my and other speakers’ papers were published on the Chinese version of the CICC website under “最新资讯 and are accessible from the landing page.  It is unclear to me why the English versions are hidden under “Research Articles.”

On the topic of my own presentation, my suggestion that China (mainland) accede to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention) was reported in the official press.

Some thoughts on my own experience on the CICC Expert Committee thus far

I will not repeat the comments I made over a year ago on my blog about the CICC.  I would echo the sentiments that several Expert Committee members expressed at the seminar, that four years is not long in the development of a judicial institution, particularly when it coincides with a global pandemic. I would add that it has also coincided with important reforms to the institution of which it is a part.

When I spoke at the SPC in 2019, I made a number of modest suggestions concerning the Expert Committee (some previously mentioned on this blog), such as using the Expert Committee as a bridge between the SPC and the international legal world,  to assist persons engaged in judicial interpretation drafting or judicial reform to understand better a foreign legal provision or mechanism that they were considering,  or for the experts to be invited to speak at a  judicial training session. These suggestions require those doing the actual work of administering the Expert Committee to make this resource known within the large bureaucratic institution of the SPC.  It is possible that this proposal was lost or forgotten.  Another possibility is that those responsible are more accustomed to dealing with routine bureaucratic matters rather than anything out of the ordinary.

Following up on my proposal (some of which were echoed by Professor Zhang in her remarks) means dealing with the concept and reality of “内外有别” (there are differences between the insiders and outsiders, often used to distinguish the foreign from the domestic) and the bureaucratic foreign affairs system if the Expert Committee member is foreign. I had also suggested inviting Expert Committee members visiting Beijing to present at the SPC, as this would have helped demonstrate the varied types of expertise among Expert Committee members, but the pandemic has mooted this suggestion, at least for the foreseeable future.  This seminar should have compensated, in part.

As for my personal involvement with Expert Committee matters, I have been involved in some translation reviews for the SPC, as my social media followers would know, and have commented on some draft judicial interpretations and other draft rules.

My view is that with any institutional change in China, taking the long view and continuing communications with thoughtful people in the System are crucial.   I echo my friend Jeremy Daum’s comments of a year ago, published on his blog:

regardless of how actively we [the United States] pursue opportunities to engage with China on legal reform, China will continue to learn from the US. Active collaboration and exchanges merely gives us an opportunity to better ensure that our own system is correctly understood, and an opportunity to learn from what is happening in China. As mentioned above, it also helps us better understand China itself, both the problems it is addressing and the goals it is working towards.

Legal exchanges of course also inform China and help them understand us. Mutual understanding is a valuable goal in its own right, but we further learn about ourselves (and about others) from hearing their perceptions of our own legal system fed back to us.

I hope I can be considered to have done something positive for better understanding and engagement through this blog and my involvement with the CICC.

Finally, I want to take some time to focus on my longer writing projects, particularly consolidating almost ten years of blogposts and almost that many years of interviews into something more accessible.  For that reason, I will post to my blog going forward about once a month going forward.  If any readers have written articles (in either Chinese or English) related to the SPC, especially its operations, please feel free to email them to: supremepeoplescourtmonitor@gmail.com or send them via social media.

Remembering Tom Jones

Tom Jones and I, March 2021

Readers of this blog who either know me personally or have looked at About Me will know that I spent almost 12 years at the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, thanks to Tom Jones (Thomas Edwin Jones), then a partner in the Hong Kong office of what was then Freshfields, now Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Freshfields). He was most recently a senior consultant with Fangda Partners, where he worked with several of our former colleagues, including Michael Han (韩亮) and Colin Law.   He passed away last week (on 17 March)  at the age of 72.  He had suffered from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).  Among the most frequent comments from former colleagues in our Freshfields “old cadre (老干部)” Wechat group that “he was a good man” and “the best mentor.”  Our many former colleagues are partners in other law firms or in-house counsel with major companies, while some who have left the law altogether and several of us are (or were) in academia. 

I was privileged to be part of his multinational team of “China lawyers,” spread out among the Freshfields offices in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, sometimes London, and often one or more cities in Germany.  Those of us from “the West” often had had a previous career before joining the team, and our mainland Chinese colleagues in the Beijing and Shanghai offices were always graduates from top law schools, with at least one 高考学霸 (top scorer in the gaokao).  Because Freshfields is a  Magic Circle firm, we regularly hosted guest lawyers from the  Lord Chancellor’s Scheme for Chinese Lawyers, several of whom later joined the firm.

When I decided to leave City University of Hong Kong in 1994, he was one of the very few law firm partners with whom I interviewed who recognized that my academic background could be an asset to the firm.  He fostered a sense of collegiality and team spirit that I subsequently discovered was a rare phenomenon.   He brought people together even after he left this world.

May his memory be for a blessing.

 

Supreme People’s Court Monitor 2019-2021 Year-end Reports

Screenshot 2018-12-07 at 5.48.29 PM
The Monitor as “Fargo North” Decoder

The Supreme People’s Court Monitor published 35 posts in 2019, 26 posts in 2020, and 26 in 2021, with about 34,000  page views each year,  primarily from:

  • United States;
  • (Mainland) China;
  • Hong Kong SAR;
  • United Kingdom.

Germany, Australia and Singapore trailed the others by a significant margin. Mainland China was in second place in 2019.  In 2020 and 2021, the Monitor had almost the same number of views from mainland China and Hong Kong.  I wish I knew the distribution of my readers in mainland China–whether they are working in the System (体制), or are academics, students, or lawyers. I was very pleased to meet some readers when I spoke in November 2019 at the Fourth Qianhai Legal Intelligence Forum, (a conference held annually in Shenzhen, supported by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)).

Why did I do less blogging in 2020  and 2021 as compared to 2019? Perhaps it can be attributed to competing professional obligations–including writing several academic-style articles and one academic blogpost.  Fortunately, 2021 saw the academic blogpost and three long articles emerge from the academic publishing machine.  I have yet to see the third long article (book chapter), which has been published. I presume that one is stuck in a warehouse, awaiting the resumption of flights from the rest of the world to Hong Kong.

One draft academic article, in which I have invested too much time,  is back on the back burner after two perceptive readers pointed out what I was feeling, that it had gone down too many research rabbit holes (掉进无底洞).   I now know that an SPC document will be issued soon that I presume will change some of the article’s content, so it is just as well that the draft is back on a slow simmer. I’m instead following the advice of one reader to spin off parts of the draft into separate articles. One will soon be ready for the editorial sausage machine.  A second one, on a topic separate from the “rabbit hole” article,  is affected by documents issued to implement the recent reforms to the four levels of the Chinese courts as well as the Civil Procedure Law amendments.  When I return to that “rabbit hole” article, it will benefit from what I have learned in researching the one that I expect can enter the editorial sausage machine soon.

In the New Era (and the Covid-19 Era), it is an even greater challenge to decode for readers outside of mainland China SPC developments insightfully in under 1500 words.  I hope I have gone some way to meeting that target.  I sometimes have my doubts.

Since the blog was founded almost nine years ago:

Page views: 233, 109
Jurisdictions: 200? (per WordPress)
Posts: 323

Most followers use Twitter to follow the Monitor. Although Twitter is not accessible in mainland China without a VPN, 16% of the Monitor’s Twitter followers are based there.

A special thank you to my anonymous “peer reviewers”, who have given forthright (in one case very blunt), insightful and helpful comments on draft blogposts.

How & Why the Supreme People’s Court serves the Belt & Road Initiative

I’m honored to be speaking in a few days (remotely) in a webinar sponsored by the Pacific-Asian Legal Studies program of the University of Hawaii at Manoa’s William S. Richardson School of Law on how and why the Supreme People’s Court Serves the Belt & Road Initiative (sign up link is here).

The event will take place at 2 pm, 5 November, Hawaii time, which translates into 8 am on 6 November in the GMT +8 timezone (Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, etc.), 11 am in Sydney, and 8 pm on the US East Coast.  The timing doesn’t work well for England (midnight) or Europe. I believe a recording will be available at a later date.

 

 

Supreme People’s Court Monitor at the Supreme People’s Court (III)

I am prefacing this blogpost with a statement that nothing in it (or future blogposts, for that matter) represents the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), the China International Commercial Court (CICC), or the  International Commercial Expert Committee (Expert Committee).

On the afternoon of 21 August, Professor Liu Jingdong of the International Law Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (pictured below) and I spoke at the SPC, invited by the #4 Civil Division.  Ms. Long Fei, Deputy Director (Person in Charge) of the CICC Coordination and Guidance Office. chaired the proceedings and Judge Wang Shumei, head of the #4 Civil Division, gave concluding remarks.  Professor Liu had previously been a guazhi scholar (seconded/temporarily assigned) in the #4 Civil Division (appointed as a deputy division chief, as is the practice). He felt the event was a reunion with his former colleagues.  This was the first event to involve lectures by CICC Expert Committee members to judges and other staff at the SPC, including several members of the CICC.  I trust that other Expert Committee members will have the same opportunity in the future.  I am grateful to all those involved in making all the arrangements needed for the event to take place and to all of those who took time away from dealing with difficult cases and other work to listen to and interact with Professor Liu and me.

 

The audience of about 40 people (pictured below) included Hu Shihao, head of the Judicial Reform Office, Li Xiao, deputy director of the Research Office, Judge Guo Zaiyu (of the CICC), and many others, including a group of students interning in the #4 Civil Division (seated in the back row).  After the formal part of the lecture (and a question and answer session), I was very happy to be able to take a few minutes to share with the students some of my thoughts about takeaways from their internships.

I spoke about the impact of the Belt and Road on the Chinese courts (about which I have previously spoken), market reaction outside of China to the CICC, and some modest suggestions relating to the Expert Committee.  I gave my presentation in Chinese, as I knew some in the audience would have difficulty understanding English, although my “foreigner’s Chinese” (洋式中文) may have been a challenge to understand. Professor Liu spoke on the “legalization” of the Belt & Road”  (the subject of his 2017 article in 政法论坛). One of my suggestions was that this not be a one-off event. The official report on the event (in People’s Court Daily), is also on the Chinese version of the CICC website.

 

 

 

Supreme People’s Court Monitor 2018 Year-end Report

Screenshot 2018-12-07 at 5.48.29 PM
The Monitor as “Fargo North” Decoder

In 2018, the Supreme People’s Court Monitor published 25 posts and had almost 39,009 page views, from 146 jurisdictions, primarily from:

  • United States;
  • (mainland) China;
  • Hong Kong;
  • United Kingdom.

with Germany, Australia and Singapore trailing. Mainland China is in second place for the first time.

Why did I do less blogging when compared to 2017, when I published 41 posts?  Perhaps it can be attributed to competing professional obligations–including writing several academic-style articles (all in the production pipeline), and the significant effort required to unpack SPC documents and initiatives in under 1500 words.  Perhaps also attributable to failing to realize that the “perfect is the enemy of the good.” The many developments in 2018 have left me with a large backlog of documents and issues to discuss.

In 2018, the work of the Monitor resulted in several official and semi-official honors (listed in chronological order):

  1. in June, the honor (and the challenge) of giving lecture #19 (in Chinese) as part of the lecture series (大讲堂) sponsored by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence, as reported in this earlier blogpost. It was the last lecture that Judge Jiang Huiling chaired before he was transferred from the Institute to the National Judicial College and I’m not aware that another lecture has been held since he was transferred.  I am very grateful to Judge Jiang (for his invitation and comments) and the two commentators, Professor Hou Meng, now of Renmin University Law School, and Huang Bin, senior editor of Journal of Law Application, for their thoughtful comments;
  2. In August, the honor of being selected to the China International Commercial Court’s International Expert Committee (Expert Committee), and the challenge of giving an eight-minute speech with substantive content that struck the right tone at the first meeting of the Expert Committee.  As reported in this earlier blogpost, the attendees at that first meeting included senior officials from within the SPC and related institutions, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce.
  3. In November, speaking at the third annual UK-China Rule of Law Roundtable, sponsored by the Great Britain China Centre (GBCC) (an introduction to GBCC is found here) and the China Law Society (CLS). The Roundtable focused on international commercial dispute resolution (CDR) Fortunately, GBCC takes an inclusive approach to its high-powered and congenial delegations. The delegation included a number of us with other than UK passports.

Since the blog was founded almost six years ago:

Page views: 108,990
Jurisdictions: 183
Posts: 212

Most followers use Twitter to follow the Monitor. Although Twitter is not accessible in mainland China without a VPN, 21% of the Monitor’s Twitter followers are based there.

Thank you to:

  • the many judges and other staff members currently or formerly affiliated with the SPC (and its institutions) and local courts, who helped me understand how the SPC and lower courts operate and nuances of life in the Chinese court system in countless ways;
  • my colleagues and students at the School of Transnational Law, Peking University (Shenzhen);
  • my fellow bloggers Jeremy Daum (Chinalawtranslate.com), Wei Changhao (npcobserver.com, Mark Cohen (Chinaipr.com), and Eugene Fidell (globalmjreform.blogspot.com);
  • the law schools and other institutions around the world, that have listed my blog as a Chinese law resource;
  • law and political science professors who have recommended the Monitor to students and many others in other institutions who have provided support in various ways;
  • journalists and scholars writing about the Chinese judiciary who have cited the Monitor;
  • organizers of conferences and other events in Beijing, Changsha, Shanghai, Washington, DC and New York.

A special thank you to those who had the fortitude to read drafts of articles and blogposts and give frank comments.

 

Supreme People’s Court Monitor at the Supreme People’s Court

Screen Shot 2018-06-28 at 6.54.40 PMOn the afternoon of 21 June, I had the honor (and the challenge) of giving a lecture as part of a lecture series (大讲堂) sponsored by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence (the Institute) (mentioned in earlier blogposts, here and here).   Judge Jiang Huiling, to my right in the photo, chaired the proceedings. Professor Hou Meng of Peking University (to my left), one of China’s leading scholars of the SPC, and Huang Bin, executive editor of the Journal of Law Application  (to Judge Jiang’s right) served as commentators.

The occasional lecture series has included prominent scholars, judges, and others from  China and abroad, including  Judge Cai Xiaoxue, retired SPC administrative division judge (and visiting professor at the Peking University School of Transnational Law), Chang Yun-chien, Research Professor at Taiwan’s Academia Sinica (a New York University SJD), and Professor Zhang Taisu of Yale Law School.

As can be seen from the title slide above. I spoke [in Chinese] about how and why I research the SPC and some tentative views on judicial reform. Preparing the Powerpoint slides and presentation involved work for me that was a counterpart to that of the drafters of President Zhou Qiang’s report to the National People’s Congress (NPC),  considering what issues would be appropriate in the post-19th Party Congress New Era, and would hit the right notes with an audience of people involved with Chinese judicial reform on a daily basis.

I spoke briefly on how I became interested in China, Chinese law, and the Supreme People’s Court, as well as Harvard Law School and its East Asian Studies program (and Columbia Law School as well). I traced my interest in socialist core values back to when I was seven years old, because of the books (see a sample below) and photos my father brought back from a tour he led of American academics working in Afghanistan to the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s, and a fateful opportunity I had as a high school student to learn Chinese. I told the audience also of the meeting I had with Professor Jerome Cohen before starting law school. (In this interview with Natalie Lichtenstein, founding legal counsel of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank),  I discovered that Professor Cohen gave many of us the same advice–“if you study Chinese law you can do something interesting”–and how his group of former students continues to be involved with China and Chinese legal issues in many different ways. I also made comparisons between the career paths of elite legal professionals in China with those in the United States.download-1

Explaining my interest in the Supreme People’s Court, I told how a serendipitous book purchase, bicycle rides past the SPC, a group of people willing to share their insights, and a lot of hard work led to my initial interest in China’s judicial system and to my 1993 article on the SPC. I also told the story of the founding of this blog.

On judicial reform, for the most part, I summarized some of my prior blogposts. I concentrated on the first several reforms as listed in the SPC’s reform outline, particularly the circuit courts, cross-administrative region courts and other efforts to reduce judicial protectionism, the maritime courts, criminal justice related reforms, the evolving case law system, judicial interpretations and other forms of SPC guidance, and many other issues.  However, some of the issues did not make it into the Powerpoint presentation. I concluded with some thoughts about the long-term impacts within China and abroad of this round of judicial reforms.

I was fortunate to have three perceptive commentators and also needed to field some very thoughtful questions from the audience.

The event was reported in the Institute’s Wechat public account and People’s Court Daily.  Many thanks to Judge Jiang and his colleagues  at the Institute for making the event possible, and Professor Hou and Mr. Huang for taking the time and trouble to come from the far reaches of Beijing to appear on the panel (and for their comments).

Screen Shot 2018-06-28 at 6.54.52 PM.png

2016 Supreme People’s Court Monitor year-end report

ornate-1045572_1280In 2016, the Supreme People’s Court Monitor published 67 posts and had close to 30,000 page views, from 150 countries (regions), primarily from:

  • United States;
  • Hong Kong;
  • (mainland) China; and
  • Australia.

with the United Kingdom, Germany, and Singapore trailing. Unfortunately too many “Belt & Road” countries are at the bottom part of the list of 150 jurisdictions.

Over half of the Monitor followers use Twitter to follow the Monitor.Although Twitter is not accessible in mainland China without a VPN, 26% of the Monitor’s Twitter followers are based there.

I am often asked about the profile of my blog followers. Like my sister blog, China IPR, my followers include academics, students, journalists, government officials, judges (current or retired), staff of international organizations as well as practicing attorneys (in private practice, in-house, government service and with NGOs).  The Monitor has some email followers in (mainland) China but they generally keep a very low profile.

I am honored to have my blog listed as a Chinese law resource by law schools and other institutions around the world, including: Harvard and Yale Law Schools, and Oxford’s Bodleian Library.  Many thanks to those professors who have recommended the Monitor to students.  Thank you also to those journalists and scholars writing about the Chinese judiciary who have cited the Monitor.

Many thanks to those professors who have recommended the Monitor to students.  Thank you also to those journalists and scholars writing about the Chinese judiciary who have cited the Monitor.

I am honored to be a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the School of Transnational Law of Peking University (in Shenzhen).  We have outstanding students and I have excellent colleagues.

I am honored to have been invited to speak at quite a few conferences in 2016:

  • one in Xiamen, organized by the Xiamen Maritime Court, sponsored by the Supreme People’s Court and Fujian Higher People’s Court, with support from the British Consulate General Guangzhou. It was not only international (with the London Maritime Arbitration Association) but included judges, in-house counsel, lawyers and academics.
  • several conferences sponsored by the University of Hong Kong; one by the City University of Hong Kong; and one by the Chinese University of Hong Kong;
  • University of Southern California’s US-China Institute’s China Card Institute (I recommend host Clay Dube’s presentation and Robert Schrum’s presentation in particular, available on the USC website and Youtube, both looking at the demonization of China and Chinese people in the US;

I was very happy to a be a guest lecturer in classes at:

  • University of Hong Kong;
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong;
  • NYU Shanghai;
  • Shanghai Jiaotong University and
  • Fordham Law School.

Also it was a special honor to engage in dialogue with Professor Jerome Cohen at NYU Law School’s US-Asia Law Institute.

Finally, a particular thank you to certain members of the Chinese legal community:

  • administrators of the Wechat public accounts that have published my articles;
  • those who have translated those articles into Chinese;
  • those Chinese judges and lawyers who shared their insights with my classes and with me; and
  • those judges who arranged for me to visit their courts.

Please use the comment function if you have special requests concerning content.

Chinese law “elephant”

 

story25i1Thank you very much to all of my followers for following me.  I plan to tweak the type of content that I am providing, providing fewer long analytical blogposts, because I want to concentrate on writing a book on Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in the era of reform, in the style of this blog and in my free time work on income-generating projects.

The blog will continue to highlight SPC developments (& cases), but more briefly (with the exception of several articles still in draft). As before, I will speak at conferences and appear on panels, or as a guest speaker in classes touching on the Chinese court system.

It is my hope that some followers with the financial wherewithal to do so will consider supporting (in some fashion) the blogs that are enabling the English speaking and reading public to perceive (through translation or bite-sized analysis) the “elephant” that is the Chinese legal system.

Through my “brother” blog Chinalawtranslate.com, the non-Chinese reading world is able to access translations of many of the most important legal documents issued by the Chinese government (and Communist Party) institutions, with some analytical blogposts and charts or other graphics. Many of those translations are of documents that are not translated by the commercial translation services. The translations are accessed and cited by a broad range of government and academic institutions (worldwide) as well as the media, NGOs, students, and individuals.

My own blog, contrary to what a Times of India article recently wrote, is not a “state-owned publication linked to the Supreme People’s Court.”  For that, the Times of India should be looking to the Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC’s) own English language site. The link between the SPC and this blog is only in the form of careful observation on my side and recognition of the existence of a focused foreign observer on the other.  I have also been shown personal kindness by a certain number of SPC judges (as well as some of their counterparts in the lower courts). An earlier blogpost gives further background on why I am publishing this.

As before, I will be available for consultation on law/court reform topics, as well as areas in which big data (and the profile) of litigation in the Chinese courts sheds light on the Chinese economy, society, etc. Chinese law firms who recognize that their English language publications need an overhaul should also contact me.

Anyone with comments or questions should feel free to contact me at: supremepeoplescourtmonitor@gmail.com.

 

 

Do you need the Supreme People’s Court Monitor?

imgres-4The Supreme People’s Court Monitor is a free resource that many institutions and individuals use, from many parts of the world.  Part-time teaching and full-time scholarship does not go even come close to paying for the tuition for one, let alone two undergraduate students.  If you value the Supreme People’s Court Monitor, please consider the following:

  • making funding available for the Monitor from your foundation or other institution;
  • donating to the School of Transnational Law of Peking University and designating the funding for the Supreme People’s Court Monitor;
  • hiring Susan Finder (the Supreme People’s Court Monitor) for consulting and drafting of research reports related to Chinese law and legal policy, and to the Chinese court system; and
  • engaging Susan for teaching, professional training, writing and editing related to the Chinese legal system.

She is well placed to provide focused analysis of Chinese legislation on the horizon, and spot regulatory trends as well  as trends in Chinese court policy and litigation that neither law firms nor risk consultancies can provide to organizations, chambers of commerce, corporations, trade associations, universities, and national or international institutions. For the Chinese legal community, she can provide skills training and training in certain areas of U.S. substantive law.

Please contact Susan at supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com with proposed projects or for further information (e.g. a copy of her cv/resume).

 

 

Monitor’s 2014 Year-end Report

imagesIn 2014, the Supreme People’s Court Monitor had almost 17,000 page views, from 122 countries (regions), primarily from:

  • United States;
  • Hong Kong;
  • Mainland China.

with the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia trailing closely. Visitors came from almost all of China’s neighbors, including:

Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Bhutan, Russia, and Tajikistan.

Like my sister blog, China IPR, my followers include academics, journalists, government officials and attorneys (both in private practice and with NGOs).  I am honored to have my blog listed as a  Chinese law resource by Harvard and Yale Law Schools, Oxford Bodleian Library as well as many other universities.

Making China Law Bloglists Around the World

Thank you to Dan Harris, of the China Law Blog, and Mark Cohen, of the China IPR blog for pointing out that Carli Spina of the Harvard Law School library has listed the Supreme People’s Court Monitor among its recommended China law resources.

I am honored that the following institutions have listed my blog among their resources:

  • Congressional Executive Commission on China
  • US-Asia Law Institute (New York University)
  • Harvard Law School Law Library
  • Tulane University Law School Law Library
  • Oxford University’s Bodleian Library
  • University of Glasgow Chinese Studies
  • University of Leiden Chinese Studies
  • University of Sydney Law Library.

谢谢!