cgcp-english-commentary-8-judge-liang new logo revised · mentioned above, although article 15 of...

Copyright 2013 by Stanford University

LIANG Jianchao

Judge of the Dongguan Municipality No. 2 People’s Court of Guangdong Province

A Discussion of the Use of Guiding Cases in Judges’ Training

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT

July 1, 2013 (Final Edition)*

* The citation of this Commentary is: 梁建超 (LIANG Jianchao), 论指导性案例在法官培训中的适用 (A

Discussion of the Use of Guiding Cases in Judges’ Training), 中国指导性案例项目 (CHINA GUIDING CASES

PROJECT), July 1, 2013, (最终版本) (Final Edition), available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/8-judge-

liang/.

For the original Chinese version of the Commentary, see 梁建超, 论指导性案例在法官培训中的适用, 中

国指导性案例项目, 2013年 7月 1日, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/8-judge-liang/.

This document was primarily translated by Aaron Hebenstreit, LI Hui, WANG Yanbo, and WEN Xihui, and

proofread by CHEN Qian, Ying Hu, Christine Liu, Jonathan Wills, and Shengying Xia. We thank Adrian LeCesne

and Yue Zhang for offering assistance in proofreading the piece. This document was reviewed and finalized by

Dimitri Phillips and Dr. Mei Gechlik.

Final Edition


2

Abstract: Judges’ training and the Case Guidance System1

are important

components of China’s current judicial reform. With regard to increasing judicial

quality and efficiency, the two manifest the wonder of “different tunes rendered

with equal skill.”2 Promoting the connection between the two components and

embedding guiding cases in judges’ training are of equal significance to the

improvement of the judges’ training mechanism and the implementation of the

Case Guidance System. In light of the different characteristics of training for

judges-in-preparation and for sitting judges, [we] should have different focuses

and adopt different teaching methods when guiding case-based teaching is used.

At the same time, [we] need to prepare the training materials well and improve

the examination and assessment system so as to ensure the efficacy of the

training.

In April 2010, the Supreme People’s Court established the “One Goal, Two

Transformations, and Three Initiatives” guidelines for [judges’] education and training, i.e.,

“setting the formation of a socialist concept of the rule of law and the improvement of judicial

competence as the goal; realizing the transformation from theory-based training to theory-and-

practice-based training and the transformation from knowledge-based training to knowledge-

and-competence-based training; and initiating teaching by judges, case-based teaching, and on-

site teaching.”3 The Supreme People’s Court issued the Provisions of the Supreme People’s

Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance in November of the same year and released a total of

16 guiding cases in four batches in December 2011, April and September 2012, and January

2013 for courts throughout China to refer to when adjudicating cases.4 It can be seen from this

1 The “Case Guidance System” discussed in this article refers to the system established by the Provisions of

the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance. For the China Guiding Cases Project’s English

translation of these provisions, see Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance,

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, Nov. 26, 2010, available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases-

rules/20101126-english/. For the original Chinese text, see 《最高人民法院关于案例指定工作的规定》, 中国指

定性案例项目》 (CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT), Nov. 26, 2010, available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-

cases-rules/20101126-chinese/.

In other formal or informal articles, some judges or scholars also use the expression “Guiding Cases

System”. However, according to published official documents, the more commonly used term is “Case Guidance

System”. For details, see 《最高人民法院关于发布第一批指导性案例的通知》 (Notice of the Supreme People’s

Court Concerning the Release of the First Batch of Guiding Cases), issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the

People’s Republic of China on December 20, 2011, available at

http://old.chinacourt.org/html/article/201112/21/472164.shtml; 《人民法院第二个五年改革纲要（2004-2008）》

(Second Five-Year Reform Outline of the People’s Courts (2004-2008)), 《中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报》

(Communique of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China), Issue 12 (2005). 2 Translators’ note: This is the literal translation of the Chinese term “异曲同工”. The underlying meaning

is that equally satisfactory results can be achieved through different approaches. 3 《一个目标两个转变三个倡导——全国法院 2006 年以来教育培训工作综述》 (One Goal, Two

Transformations and Three Initiatives—A Summary of Work Concerning the Education and Training in Courts

Across the Nation), issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China on April 2, 2011,

available at http://www.court.gov.cn/xwzx/yw/201104/t20110402_19274.htm. 4 For relevant guiding cases, see http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/.

Final Edition


3

that the Supreme People’s Court has confirmed the use of such training methods as case-based

teaching to improve judges’ judicial competence and provided judges, through the release of

guiding cases, with references when they adjudicate similar cases. These two [approaches] have

two commonalities: (1) the subjects of the training or guidance are judges of courts at all levels;

(2) the ultimate goals are also to increase judicial quality and efficiency. Therefore, integrating

these two [approaches] can achieve the effect of mutual promotion. This commentary is

intended to be a preliminary investigation of how to use guiding cases in judges’ training.

I. Current Status and Deficiencies of Judges’ Training

1. Structure and Contents of Judges’ Training

In accordance with the provisions in the Judges’ Law of the People’s Republic of China5

and the Judges’ Training Regulation of the People’s Republic of China,6 judges’ education and

training in China can be divided into the training of judges-in-preparation and the training of

sitting judges.

The subjects of the training of judges-in-preparation are court personnel who have passed

the unified National Judicial Examination and aspire to be judges. The training is organized by

the National Judges College or by judges’ colleges at the provincial level entrusted by the

National Judges College. The training consists of two components, namely, centralized training

and internships, and lasts for at least one year. The duration of centralized training varies in

different places. In practice, it usually lasts for approximately half a month to one month, and

does not exceed three months. The remaining time is for internships. Generally, judges-in-

preparation who participate in the training return to their courts of origin to do the internships.

The main content of this training includes training in job specifications, professional ethics, and

adjudication practices. 7

The training of sitting judges includes appointment training, promotion training, and

appointment-continuation training. Newly appointed court presidents and vice presidents are

required to receive appointment training for no less than a month and a half. The main content is

training in management and professional competence indispensible to their positions. Those

judges who are promoted to be senior judges require promotion training for no less than one

month. The main content is training in the knowledge and skills indispensible to the position.

Other judges are required to participate in the appointment-continuation training for no less than

half a month per year. The main content is training in updating position-related knowledge and

5 《中华人民共和国法官法》 (Judges’ Law of the People's Republic of China), adopted by the Standing

Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 30, 2001 and effective as of January 1, 2002, available at

http://www.chinalaw.gov.cn/article/fgkd/xfg/fl/200112/20011200033275.shtml. 6 《中华人民共和国法官培训条例》 (Judges’ Training Regulation of the People's Republic of China),

adopted by the Supreme People’s Court on March 30, 2006 and effective as of April 1, 2006, available at

http://www.chinalaw.gov.cn/article/fgkd/xfg/sfwj/200904/20090400132249.shtml. 7 Id. art. 15.

Final Edition


4

increasing professional adjudication skills.8

The judges’ training institutions consist of the National Judges College, judges’ colleges

at the provincial level, and judges’ training centers at the municipal level. They are responsible

for different training tasks mainly in accordance with the ranks of judges trained.

2. Problems with the Current Judges’ Training9

2.1 The Teaching Method Used in the Training Lacks Interactions

The current judges’ training is primarily in the form of class instruction. Mechanical

indoctrination of knowledge is the main teaching method. With the exception of a few trainees

who ask questions and interact with the instructor during training breaks, there are basically no

sessions scheduled for interaction and exchange. The disadvantage resulting from this kind of

unidirectional instruction is that trainees cannot engage in independent thinking or cultivate their

judicial competence. As a consequence, the learning atmosphere is relatively dull and judges’

enthusiasm toward participating in training is not high. Training of judges-in-preparation is an

example. These judges do not have actual experience in adjudicating cases and their most urgent

need is to acquire the skills to resolve real problems through training. However, the current

training for judges-in-preparation is still the same as college classes. It focuses on indoctrination

of knowledge, lacks drills on practical situations, and is devoid of cultivation of competence. As

a result, judges-in-preparation still do not know where to begin when faced with real cases. The

training cannot fully meet the trainees’ expectations, and over time, it will become merely a kind

of formality to become qualified as a judge.

2.2 The Contents of the Training Cannot Fully Meet Actual Needs

For a long time, judges’ education and training in China have lacked a long-term

systematic plan and different kinds of training have lacked effective convergence. Judges’

education and training have always been in a state of responding to emergencies, in which [we]

“treat the head when there is a headache and treat the foot when there is a foot-ache.”10

As

mentioned above, although Article 15 of the Judges’ Training Regulation provides for the

contents of training for judges-in-preparation and sitting judges, these provisions are only a type

of directional guidance in broad strokes. They lack specifications on course design and unified

preparation of course materials, leading to great variability in course arrangements made by each

training institution. With respect to the design of actual training content, the study of new laws,

regulations, and judicial interpretations is given priority. It is a common phenomenon that the

imparting of knowledge is emphasized while capacity-building is not. Although this training

8 Id. arts. 2 and 15.

9 See generally 贺妮娟 (HE Nijuan), 论我国法官教育培训制度的完善 (On the Improvement of China’s

Judges’ Education and Training System), 《重庆大学硕士论文》 (MASTER’S THESES OF CHONGQING

UNIVERSITY), 13–15 (May 2011). 10

Translators’ note: The original Chinese text is “头痛医头、脚痛医脚”, an idiom meaning to respond to

problems passively as they emerge without addressing the root causes of the problems.

Final Edition


5

resolves to some extent the issue of updating knowledge required by the positions, it cannot

completely satisfy judges’ needs for improving their adjudication skills.

2.3 The Lack of an Effective Assessment Mechanism

Article 28 of the Judges’ Training Regulation provides that for judges who refuse to

participate in training without appropriate reasons, their people’s courts should urge them to

rectify [their behavior] and should give them criticism and education or even abolish their

eligibility for appointment-continuation and promotion training, depending on the seriousness of

the circumstances.11

Article 28 of the Judges’ Law provides that the grades and assessments

received by judges during the training period are part of the bases for their appointment and

promotion.12

However, in reality, these provisions are rarely implemented, especially in lecture-

style training, in which the standard for passing the training is usually whether or not a judge

attends. Although some judges’ training institutions have included examinations, it is hard for

these examinations to genuinely reflect the effects of the training since the scope of the training

contents is rather broad and the training is a type of introductory-level education. For example,

although provisions on the training of judges-in-preparation require judges-in-preparation to

receive at least one year of training, a large part of this time is [taken up by] the internship period

and internships do not have corresponding standards for assessment. To develop the skills

required for their positions, most judges-in-preparation rely on themselves to learn from their

work, rely on senior judges to share experiences, and acquire practical judicial adjudication skills

in a self-initiated and piecemeal fashion. This, to some extent, has also dampened judges’

enthusiasm toward participating in training.

II. The Value of Embedding Guiding Cases in Judges’ Training

1. The Value for Judges’ Training

1.1 Using Guiding Case-Based Teaching Can Remedy the Problem of Lacking

Practicality in Current Judges’ Training and Can Strengthen the Usefulness of Training

For a long time, legal education in China has overemphasized the imparting of legal

knowledge but neglected training in methodology, resulting in a lack of legal thinking. Due to

the existence of similar problems as discussed above, including inadequate interactions in

teaching methods and the lack of comprehensiveness in training content, judges’ training has

become an extension of legal education and does not have great practicality. From the

perspective of the goals of judges’ training and the judges’ actual needs, judges’ training not only

needs to realize the updating of judges’ knowledge, but also, and more importantly, it needs to

improve judges’ ability to resolve actual problems, that is, [to know] how to apply abstract law to

a specific case. This requires judges to be trained in legal thinking, and case-based teaching is

precisely the strategy and method to realize this goal. Case-based teaching emphasizes

11

Judges’ Training Regulation, supra note 6, art. 28. 12

Judges’ Law, supra note 5, art. 28.

Final Edition


6

interaction and inspiration and can increase students’ enthusiasm and strengthen the effects of

learning.

The legal problems involved in guiding cases are problems that are not regulated by law

or are only regulated by general principles. However, these legal problems are quite common.

Through adjudication, courts concretely resolved these legal problems and interpreted related

law. Selecting guiding cases to conduct case-based teaching during judges’ training can have

significant effects on judges’ grasp of the methods to interpret law and fill gaps [in the law].

This type of ability is in fact one of the skills that judges must have in order to perform their

professional duties.

1.2 Studying Guiding Cases during Judges’ Training Can Effectively Improve Judges’

Efficiency and Reduce their Work Pressure

Because Chinese society is experiencing rapid changes, cases of new types and difficult,

complicated cases continue to emerge. As Judge Benjamin Cardozo once said, “[t]o these I may

add that the labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past

decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on

the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.”13

In reality,

frontline judges always face the dual pressures of having heavy caseloads and decisions being

reversed by upper-level courts. Studying guiding cases during judges’ training is beneficial to

judges’ understanding of upper-level courts’ opinions in handling difficult, complicated cases.

When faced with difficult, complicated cases, judges can, through searching for similar guiding

cases and following them to resolve the pending cases, substantially improve their work

efficiency, conserve judicial resources, reduce the risk of their decisions being reversed, and

effectively reduce their work pressure.

2. The Value for Guiding Cases

The establishment of the Case Guidance System has a profound significance for the rule

of law in China. A system must, however, undergo practical and coherent implementation before

it can exert its expected effects and sustain its vitality. The executors of the Case Guidance

System are the numerous frontline judges. The Supreme People’s Court released the Provisions

of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance to specify such issues as the

selection standards, selection procedures, and means of release for guiding cases, and to state the

authority of the guiding cases as [cases] that “people’s courts at all levels should refer to when

adjudicating similar cases.”14

However, due to China’s statutory law tradition, judges are used to

searching within statutory law for a basis upon which a decision is made and lack the judicial

techniques needed when cases are referred to. In addition, because China is a vast country, the

13

Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Yale University Press (1921), available at

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cardozo/jud_proc.htm. For a Chinese translation, see 苏力译 (Su Li trans.), 《司法

过程的性质》 (The Nature of the Judicial Process), 商务印书馆 (The Commercial Press), 94 (1998). 14

Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance, supra note 1, art. 7.

Final Edition


7

numerous frontline judges in basic level courts have an understanding of the Case Guidance

System and the guiding cases that is far from sufficient. The lack of competence and the

insufficient understanding will likely cause judges to be reluctant to refer to guiding cases, even

when it is necessary to do so during adjudication. The intended functions of guiding cases will,

therefore, not put into practice. In light of this, embedding the study of guiding cases in judges’

training and improving judges’ understanding of guiding cases and ability to apply them will not

only effectively disseminate guiding cases, but also ensure that, to the maximum extent, they are

correctly understood and applied.

III. Thoughts on Embedding Guiding Cases in Judges’ Training

1. The Use of Guiding Cases in the Training of Judges-in-Preparation

In the system of judges’ training, the training of judges-in-preparation takes the longest

time and covers trainees that are the most special. Its special nature arises from the fact that

most of the trainees are fresh college and university graduates working in courts for the first

time, and generally lack experience in adjudication. Also, due to deficiencies in legal education,

most of them lack mature legal thinking and, when faced with a real case, cannot analyze it

systematically on the basis of the claim.15

Therefore, under the circumstances that legal

education has not been improved, considering practical needs, the training of judges-in-

preparation must focus on fostering the judges’ legal thinking and ability to apply laws. In

addition, creation of adjudication documents, which are major carriers to show how cases are

handled, is also an important element of the training for judges-in-preparation. Embedding

guiding cases in the judges’ training can effectively improve judges’ competence on the two

aforementioned aspects. In particular, the following two types of contents should be included:

1.1 The Study of Guiding Cases

In order to make full use of the functions of guiding cases in judicial practice, frontline

trial judges must have a solid understanding of all guiding cases. For judges-in-preparation,

adding the study of guiding cases to their training will firstly enrich their knowledge base so that

they may use these cases in adjudication. Secondly, guiding cases cover the interpretation of

legal issues; therefore, by explaining guiding cases, instructors can guide the judges-in-

preparation to analyze cases and foster their legal thinking. At the same time, [the students can]

learn methods for legal interpretation and methods for filling gaps in law, enhancing their ability

to apply law.

Furthermore, pursuant to the opinions expressed by the person in charge of the related

department of the Supreme People’s Court, references to the guiding cases should be strictly

15 吴光荣 (WU Guangrong), 案例教学在法学教育和法官培训中的作用 (The Functions of Case-Based

Teaching in Legal Education and Judges’ Training), 《法律方法与法律思维》 (LEGAL METHODOLOGY AND LEGAL

THINKING · VOLUME 7), 法律出版社 (Law Press), July 2011.

Final Edition


8

confined to the scope of the “Main Points of the Adjudication”.16

But since guiding cases are

selected level by level from a huge volume of adjudication documents, besides possessing all the

fundamental requirements to be a guiding case, the quality of these documents must also comply

with outstanding standards. In addition, when the guiding cases are released, the Supreme

People’s Court often enhances the discussion of the reasons for the adjudication in accordance

with practical needs. This further improves the quality of these adjudication documents.

Therefore, the rules on admission of evidence, methods for using evidence, ascertainment of

facts as discussed in guiding cases, as well as the reasons for the adjudication can all provide

judges with a chain of thoughts for reference when they adjudicate cases in the future and these

judges can draw inferences from these rules and apply them to other cases. This type of guiding

case, embedded in a written judgment,17

can effectively augment adjudication experience of the

judges-in-preparation and improve their ability to produce adjudication documents. From a

training perspective, this is usually more important than the “Main Points of the Adjudication”.

The study of guiding cases can vary in form, and different methods can be adapted to suit

different goals. The traditional form of class instruction is efficient in terms of allowing trainees

to grasp the maximum amount of information within a short period of time. Case-based

teaching, however, allows students to think independently and thus develop legal thinking. It can

also improve the trainees’ ability to produce adjudication documents by various means, including

instructor-trainee interactive assessment through hands-on practice.

1.2 Cultivating the Ability to Use Guiding Cases

The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance

issued by the Supreme People’s Court make it clear that people’s courts at all levels should refer

to guiding cases when adjudicating similar cases. However, knowing how to determine “similar

cases” is the key to the issue whether judges can correctly refer to guiding cases. The person in

charge of the related department of the Supreme People’s Court opines: the term “similar”

requires similarity in, first, the basic facts of the case, and, second, the legal issues in dispute and

the scope for determining the [similarity] issue must be within the scope defined by the “Main

Points of the Adjudication”.18

The techniques used in the Anglo-American case law systems to

distinguish cases are very advanced. During the judges’ training, useful lessons from the case

law systems used in Anglo-American countries should be learned and combined with the special

features of China’s distinct Case Guidance System so as to explore the judicial techniques that

are applicable to guiding cases. These techniques include those for comparing basic facts of

cases, weighing different options, and identifying applicable parts and excluding others. After

16 胡云腾 (HU Yunteng), 谈指导性案例的编选与参照 (On the Selection and Reference of Guiding Cases),

《人民法院报》 (PEOPLE’S COURT DAILY), July 20, 2011, available at

http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2011-07/20/content_30504.htm. 17

For the discussion of “guiding cases embedded in written judgments”, see, e.g., 张骐 (ZHANG Qi), 指导性

案例中具有指导性部分的确定与适用 (Determination and Application of Parts of Guiding Cases That Have

Guiding Effects), 《法学》 (LEGAL STUDIES), Issue No. 10 (2008), at 94. 18

胡云腾 (HU Yunteng), supra note 16.

Final Edition


9

teaching basic judicial techniques, instructors could, through comparing different specially

designed hypothetical cases with the released guiding cases, ask the trainees to determine

whether the “similar cases” requirement is met, and whether the guiding cases could be applied.

Through interactive instruction, class discussion, and comments and analysis made by

instructors, trainees will have the ability to master the application of guiding cases.

2. The Use of Guiding Cases in the Training of Sitting Judges

The training of sitting judges includes appointment training, promotion training and

appointment-continuation training, the common goal of all of which is to help judges acquire

knowledge and skills indispensible for their positions. In contrast with the training of judges-in-

preparation, the training of sitting judges is designed for judges who have some adjudication

experience. Therefore, training in legal thinking and in skills relevant to the making of

adjudication documents should not be the main focus. However, the means and methods for

enhancing judges’ ability to apply the law and use guiding cases that are employed in the training

for judges-in-preparation can be employed similarly in the training for sitting judges. Unlike the

training of judges-in-preparation, the training of sitting judges should also treat the composition

of guiding cases as a significant component. This is because the guiding cases are mainly

recommended by people’s courts at all levels to the Guiding Cases Office of the Supreme

People’s Court. The numerous frontline trial judges are the main recommenders of the guiding

cases. If the frontline judges are deficient in their ability to discover and compose guiding cases,

the Case Guidance System will be cut off at the source and will become difficult to sustain.

Hence, apart from being familiar with the selection standards of guiding cases and selecting

appropriate cases to recommend, judges should compose cases carefully and in accordance with

the requirements set forth in the Opinion Concerning the Style Used in Writing and Submitting

Guiding Cases, released by the Supreme People’s Court on January 10, 2012.19

The Case Guidance System is at an early implementation stage. It is absolutely necessary

to help frontline judges through training to become proficient with the formats and techniques of

writing guiding cases. In particular, they need to learn how to refine the “Main Points of the

Adjudication”, describe the “Basic Facts of the Case” well, and elucidate the “Reasons for the

Adjudication” accurately. Training in the writing of guiding cases is a type of skill training. Not

only must judges specifically study the viewpoints and techniques in the writing of the guiding

cases that are already released, they must also be given opportunities to practice during the

training. Instructors should get involved in the practice and point out the mistakes in real time to

achieve the good effects of the training.

19

胡云腾、吴光侠 (HU Yunteng and WU Guangxia), 指导性案例的体例与编写 (The Style and Writing of

Guiding Cases), 《人民法院报》 (PEOPLE’S COURT DAILY), April 11, 2012, available at

http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2012-04/11/content_43107.htm. 《关于编写报送指导性案例体例的意见》

(Opinion Concerning the Style Used in Writing and Submitting Guiding Cases), issued by the Supreme People’s

Court on January 10, 2012, available at http://hsxfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=391.

Final Edition


10

3. Supporting Mechanisms for the Use of Guiding Cases in Judges’ Training

3.1 Preparing Training Materials Well

Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case

Guidance stipulates that the Guiding Cases Work Office of the Supreme People’s Court compiles

guiding cases annually. However, to serve as the materials used for training in guiding cases,

those guiding cases already released should not be merely compiled into booklets. They should

be prepared in such a way as to suit different training goals and teaching methods. The contents

used in all judges’ training in guiding cases offered in different regions should be unified, which

can enhance the effects of the training. The training materials should include basic lecture

content as well as items for practice and discussion. For example, the training materials aimed at

improving judges’ skills in writing adjudication documents should include the original judgments

of the guiding cases as attachments and exercises. The training materials aimed at improving

judges’ ability to use guiding cases should include judicial techniques necessary for this purpose,

and should include a variety of cases designed to encourage trainees to discuss whether or not the

cases conform with the “similar cases” requirements. The training materials aimed at the writing

of guiding cases should include corresponding exercises and sections for comments and analysis.

Training materials should be prepared primarily with the trainees in mind. Through the

appropriate arrangement of training materials, trainees should be led to study guiding cases and

ponder the methods for applying law. Through practice and discussions, they will strengthen

their mastery of the skills. At the same time, the roles of the instructors should be clearly defined

as ones who provide the tools for analyzing problems, guide the case analysis and discussion,

and make conclusions and explanations at the end of the discussion.

3.2 Improving the Assessment Used In Judges’ Training

Due to limitations on the course contents and the teaching methods, the current judges’

training system lacks effective assessment mechanisms, causing trainees to have little enthusiasm

about participating in training and the training programs to produce little effect. After guiding

cases are embedded in judges’ training, the assessment [mechanism] will become more

operational. Case discussions, document-writing exercises, and other contents can be

incorporated into the assessment. Different forms of assessment can be designed to aim at

different training goals. The examinations at the end of training can be replaced by assessment

during training. These changes will make the training more interactive and inspire the trainees to

participate more enthusiastically in the training.

IV. Conclusion

In light of the current status of judges’ training in China and its actual needs, embedding

guiding cases in judges’ training, equipping judges with the skills of writing and using guiding

cases, and integrating guiding cases into judges’ legal thinking will be conducive to improving

judges’ ability to resolve disputes and conflicts during adjudication. Guiding cases will, in turn,

Final Edition


11

gradually become valued, followed, and applied, and will maintain their legal vitality. The issue

as to how to use guiding cases in judges’ training requires unified planning conducted at the

national level, preparation of good training materials and appropriate teaching arrangements to

meet specific needs of different trainees, and improvement in response to experiences

accumulated through practice. Only then can the dual successes be achieved.

cgcp-english-commentary-8-judge-liang new logo revised · mentioned above, although article 15 of...

Documents