• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Paper

Judicial Reform in China: Lessons from Shanghai

This study seeks to answer three questions: Are interference, intracourt and intercourt influence, and judicial corruption of a lesser magnitude in Shanghai than in other parts of China? If so, what measures has Shanghai taken to accomplish this? What lessons about judicial reform in China can be learned from Shanghai’s experiences?

Link Copied
By Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)
Published on Apr 15, 2005

Additional Links

Full Text (PDF)
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Summary
The George W. Bush administration in September 2002 laid out in the "National Security Strategy of the United States" its strategy toward China: "We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China, "During a trip to Asia in March 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice adopted a similar phrase to welcome "the rise of a confident, peaceful, and prosperous China."

Implicit in Washington’s message is its concern about the potential threat of China’s rise. To ease such concern prevailing outside China and to respond to criticisms about the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) governance spreading across the country, Beijing has vowed to establish a "socialist harmonious society" that features, among other characteristics, the rule of law, fairness, and justice. Unfortunately, courts in China have yet to exemplify the rule of law, fairness, and justice. Understanding that its governance cannot be sustained by a dysfunctional justice system, Beijing has taken a series of actions to reform China’s judiciary.

This study seeks to analyze whether fairness has been achieved in Shanghai and what this means to China as a whole, and it tries to accomplish this through extensive literary research as well as a survey and interviews in China, especially Shanghai. This study seeks to answer three questions: Are interference, intracourt and intercourt influence, and judicial corruption of a lesser magnitude in Shanghai than in other parts of China? If so, what measures has Shanghai taken to accomplish this? What lessons about judicial reform in China can be learned from Shanghai’s experiences?

Click on link above for the full text of this Carnegie Paper.

About the Author
Veron Mei-Ying Hung is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment’s China Program. She has in-depth experience in Chinese law, and law and politics in the Asia-Pacific region. In academia and the private sector, she has studied such areas as legal reform in China, constitutional development in Hong Kong, human rights in Cambodia, and trade with China.  She is the author of "China’s WTO Commitment on Independent Judicial Review: Impact on Legal and Political Reform"(American Journal of Comparative Law) and "Getting to Democracy in Hong Kong" (Carnegie Endowment).

Also published in The Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Spring/Fall 2005 issue, Volume 19, Number 1.

About the Author

Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)

Former Non-Resident Associate

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts: An Analysis of Recent Patent Judgments

      Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)

  • Other
    Getting to Democracy in Hong Kong

      Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)

Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)
Former Non-Resident Associate
Mei Ying Gechlik (Veron Hung)
ChinaPolitical ReformDemocracy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Forbidden City on a cloudy day
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why

    Arguing that Chinese policy is hung on alliances—with imputations of obligation—misses the point. 

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced Voting

    The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • People in voting booths
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.

    New data from the 2026 Indian American Attitudes Survey show that Democratic support has not fully rebounded from 2020.

      • +1

      Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …

  • A young man uses Kimi, an AI grand model of artificial intelligence launched by Moonshot AI, in Shanghai, China, March 22, 2024.
    Article
    China Is Worried About AI Companions. Here’s What It’s Doing About Them.

    A new draft regulation on “anthropomorphic AI” could impose significant new compliance burdens on the makers of AI companions and chatbots.

      Scott Singer, Matt Sheehan

  • Research
    New Approaches to Defending Global Civil Society

    New thinking is needed on how global civil society can be protected. In an era of major-power rivalry, competitive geopolitics, and security primacy, civil society is in danger of getting squeezed – in some countries, almost entirely out of existence.

      Richard Youngs, ed., Elene Panchulidze, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.