Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Procedure Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure

“Moral Conviction” Plus “Joint Sanctions”: The Judgment-Defaulter Blacklist System In China, Ding Chunyan Aug 2023

“Moral Conviction” Plus “Joint Sanctions”: The Judgment-Defaulter Blacklist System In China, Ding Chunyan

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Although there has been literature generally discussing China’s social credit system, little research carefully examines the nature and logic of the judgment-defaulter blacklist system, from which the broader blacklist system under the social credit system originated. This article reveals that China’s judgment-defaulter blacklist system pragmatically utilizes a strategic combination of “moral conviction” and “joint sanctions” to remedy the failure of the judiciary to perform its duty of judgment enforcement and the ineffectiveness of the legal approaches to enhancing judgment enforcement. The judgment-defaulter blacklist system runs parallel to the existing legal system and will likely impose double punishment on discredited judgment …


How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding Dec 2019

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …