French
DeutschTemplate talk:Courts of China
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
HK and Macau courts are not "PRC courts"
[edit]Although Hong Kong and Macau form parts of the People's Republic of China, the people of the two Special Administrative Regions enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" under "One Country Two Systems" as guaranteed in the Basic Laws. Provision is also made in the PRC Constitution that the two SARs can set up their own systems that are different and independent from the one in mainland China.
In this connection, law courts in Hong Kong and Macau are indeed not "PRC courts". The judiciaries of Hong Kong and Macau are independent and are not subordinate to the PRC judiciary. It is inaccurate and wrong for the template to label all the three court systems as "PRC court system" and to display the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau as if they were inferior.
"PRC Courts" should only be used to specifically refer to all ranks of the People's Courts in the mainland that are formed under "The Organic Law of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China" (which is indeed inapplicable to Hong Kong and Macau). That is why I remove the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau from the template. --Clithering (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- HK/MO courts are subject to the interpretation by the NPCSC. They are separate legal systems, but all are part of the PRC court system as a whole. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I've decided to remove the line that says "constitutional court" = NPC standing committee. The NPCSC isn't part of the court system anyway, and its role is controversial. I've also changed "Central people's government" back to "Mainland", as that's a better reflection of the court's scope. Even though the Chinese politburo is seen (and often acts) as one contiguous block, the court system is (nominally) subject to the congress, not the government. Deryck C. 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in a good change from Mainland/CPG, but it has to make sense to a global audience. The mainland/CPG courts are the primary courts of the primary jurisdiction of what the world sees as the most populous country. Calling them "mainland" courts is an incorrect label based on the existence of outliers. What would this be labeled if HK/MO didn't exist? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Calling them mainland makes a lot more sense to the global audience than CPG: a random foreigner is far more likely to understand what's Mainland than CPG. Using CPG is also wrong: for the reasons I said above, and because even with HK and Mo separated into their own categories, using CPG may give a reader the false impression that the mainland courts have authority over all PRC. If the outliers of HK and Mo didn't exist, we simply wouldn't need to subdivide the box into 3 sections.
- And please, don't undo two things at a time and explain only one of them. I've left the CPG vs. Mainland part in your version, but reverted the NPC part. Deryck C. 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in a good change from Mainland/CPG, but it has to make sense to a global audience. The mainland/CPG courts are the primary courts of the primary jurisdiction of what the world sees as the most populous country. Calling them "mainland" courts is an incorrect label based on the existence of outliers. What would this be labeled if HK/MO didn't exist? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I've decided to remove the line that says "constitutional court" = NPC standing committee. The NPCSC isn't part of the court system anyway, and its role is controversial. I've also changed "Central people's government" back to "Mainland", as that's a better reflection of the court's scope. Even though the Chinese politburo is seen (and often acts) as one contiguous block, the court system is (nominally) subject to the congress, not the government. Deryck C. 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I've changed CPG back to mainland, since you edited the page without responding to my argument above. Actually it makes a lot of sense for the IP editor to remove HK and Mo altogether: that'll end our debate here forever :) Deryck C. 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, NPCSC isn't part of the court system, and its controversial role means that it shouldn't belong to this table. "Mainland" is a far more accurate way to refer to the geographical jurisdiction of the courts, as CPG also has nominal control over HK and Mo. Please don't just revert unilaterally and avoid the discussion. Deryck C. 04:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I said NSCC instead of NPCSC in my edit summary, sorry. NPCSC is in a unique position, but as a legal interpretive body, over all courts including the SARS, it clearly belongs here. The wording of "constitutional court" could probably be changed.
- I am certainly willing to hear what you think "mainland/CPG" should be changed to. Mainland isn't it. You're equating the primary nation with outlier jurisdictions and that isn't right. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thanks for responding to this discussion, it's really appreciated.
- NPCSC is part of the legislature, not the judiciary. Although the constitutions of PRC and both SARs imply that NPCSC has interpretive power, NPCSC exercises its power by interpreting the constitutions directly, rather than passing verdicts for specific cases. That means it is part of the legislature and therefore not part of the judiciary, let alone a "court". ({{CourtsEnglandWales}} may give a rough idea of what belongs to this kind of templates.
- Mainland is, in my opinion, the best word to use for that row heading. This is because it refers precisely to the geographical area over which those courts have jurisdiction, ie. PRC minus (HK + Mo). If you can find another word which refers precisely to this geographical area, then please suggest it and I'm happy to hear your opinion. Deryck C. 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)