Editor’s Note: The Fourth Seminar of the International Commercial Expert Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and Reappointment (New appointment) Ceremony of Expert Members was held successfully on September 25, 2024. Over 40 experts from more than 20 countries and regions focused on the theme of the “Collaborative Dialogue, Diverse Integration, Peaceful Development” during the seminar. Extensive and in-depth discussions were held within the framework of four specific issues. The texts of opening ceremony speeches delivered by the members of expert committee would be posted on the CICC’s website.

ADDRESS AT THE FOURTH SEMINAR OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL EXPERT COMMITTEE OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT OF CHINA

XU Xianming

Vice President of the China Law Society

Honorable President Zhang Jun, distinguished justices, and experts, good morning!

Receiving the appointment certificate as a member of the International Commercial Expert Committee holds special significance for me. Throughout my career, I have received numerous appointment certificates, but this one represents a unique opportunity for me to contribute to the judiciary. I am profoundly grateful to the Supreme People’s Court for this trust and to my fellow experts for the opportunity to learn from all of you.

Although my specialty is not international law, I greatly value this appointment. The previous speakers mentioned the concepts of “international rule of law and global rule of law.” At this moment, I am also contemplating how to make China’s judiciary more transparent, impartial, and respected on the world stage. The global rule of law is the culmination of five to seven thousand years of human development. The oldest known laws date back 7,000 years to ancient Egypt, while the Chinese legal tradition boasts a history of 5,000 years. Human legal civilization has evolved through various stages, from retributive justice to suppressive justice, and then to controlling justice. Today’s rule of law differs from these earlier models; we now embrace a responsive rule of law. This transformation within legal civilization necessitates a higher standard for the judiciary, which I refer to as “friendly justice.” This approach is crucial for achieving a civilized legal system. From the perspective of human legal evolution, it is historically imperative that the judiciary earns greater respect. Responsive justice prioritizes the people’s need for fairness and justice, where the ultimate and highest value of the judiciary is always fairness. This principle is a shared characteristic of the global rule of law.

In the field of criminal justice, the global rule of law has undergone several stages of development. Particularly since the publication of  Crimes and Punishments (Dei Delitti e Delle Pene) in Italy over 200 years ago, the landscape of criminal justice has experienced profound transformations. Our Chief Justice is a leading expert in criminal law in China, and during his tenure as Procurator-General, he advocated for “fewer arrests, prudent prosecutions, and careful detention.” In my opinion, this has ushered in a new chapter in China’s criminal justice system. The evolution of humanity’s criminal justice has transitioned from barbaric and retaliatory methods to a more civilized approach. China has also witnessed a historical shift towards an era of  a significant indicator of progress in its criminal justice system. This era calls for a more humane and civilized approach to justice, where detention should be the exception and bail the norm. This is the type of response the judiciary should strive to provide, gradually working towards this goal to earn greater respect.

The global rule of law has undergone significant changes in civil justice. The world’s first civil code, the Napoleonic Code, established the inviolability of private property. However, this principle was revised in the second notable civil code, the German Civil Code, where ownership evolved from an absolute right to a relative one, emphasizing that property rights should serve the public interest. This shift contributed to the development of social security systems in Germany. The third notable civil code, the Swiss Civil Code, marked the beginning of a unified era of civil and commercial law. Today, the most comprehensive civil code is the Dutch Civil Code. The translation of this code into Chinese began in 2006, organized by a team from the China University of Political Science and Law, and includes provisions on intellectual property and maritime law.

From the Swiss Civil Code to the Dutch Civil Code, humanity has transitioned into a new era dominated by commercial law, which we are currently experiencing. The civil law era prioritizes property protection, while commercial law emphasizes the circulation of ownership. During the civil law era, wealth accumulation did not grow as abundantly as it does today, where wealth flows like a spring. In contrast, the commercial law era is characterized by wealth creation. It facilitates the circulation of goods and is a time when wealth is generated. Our commercial adjudication aligns with the principles of this commercial law era. As China’s judiciary enters this phase, it should prioritize facilitating wealth exchange, allowing wealth to flow freely as an aspiration of commercial justice. To enhance the respect and impartiality of China’s judiciary, we must fully embrace this era of commercial law.

The recently presented foreign-related commercial and maritime video has illustrated that our foreign-related commercial adjudication is built upon two foundational pillars. The first pillar is maritime adjudication, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year—an important milestone. The second pillar, international commercial adjudication, was established in 2018. Together, these two pillars will undoubtedly bolster China’s judiciary on the global stage. China’s judiciary should be more open; we have now established cooperative relationships with judicial institutions in over 140 states, and I believe this scope should be expanded further. The video mentioned the Nerissa case, which I had followed closely. The ship was renamed “Respect” because of the trust in China’s rule of law, the judiciary, and judicial institutions. Shortly after the South China Sea Arbitration, a shipwreck occurred in the South China Sea involving a Hong Kong client. The arbitration did not hinder Chinese judicial authority; instead, it reinforced China’s judicial credibility internationally. When the Hong Kong shipowner sought a declaration of death for the crew, they chose the Maritime Court of Shanghai City of People’s Republic of China instead of courts in any other jurisdiction, exemplifying the international recognition of Chinese justice. This is another significant case of China’s judicial authority being respected globally. This reappointment and expansion of our Expert Committee members, I believe, will provide a solid foundation for further global respect for China’s judiciary, and this is my heartfelt sentiment at this moment.

Thank you!

*The original text is Chinese and has been translated into English for reference only. If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.