Leo的恒河沙

Ordinary People "Fear Lawsuits" Also Comes from Their Strangeness to the Law#

#Omnivore

Highlights#

Procedural Justice and Adversarial System: Modern law pursues procedural fairness, requiring parties to actively participate rather than relying on a judge like Bao Qingtian. ⤴️ ^b632f435

Judges are not Bao Qingtian. Without a fair judge to uphold justice for you, we must uphold justice for ourselves, of course within the framework of the law. The law provides us with a workable framework for self-advocacy. This is the difference between modern law and ancient bureaucracies, a point that most Chinese may not be aware of. In the West, due to the emphasis on debate and other characteristics of the legal system, the public has a much higher acceptance of this.

Modern legal design particularly emphasizes procedure, which actually requires judges to step back and let the parties fight for their rights, thus demanding that everyone actively maintain their own interests. ⤴️ ^f48754f5

This is not the most authentic state of the law. The law is neither as just as you expect nor as dark as you imagine; the real law may lie somewhere in between. ⤴️ ^38fc2d5f

This article comes from the WeChat public account: Youthology (ID: openyouthology001), dialogue: Zhai Zhiyong (Professor at the School of Law, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics), Yang Shao. The original title is: "Fear and Disappointment Towards the Law Also Comes from Strangeness to the Law," and the cover image is from: Visual China.

This article discusses ordinary people's fear and disappointment towards the law, as well as their sense of unfamiliarity with it. The author points out that ordinary people's expectations of the law often stem from a longing for a "parent-like" figure like Bao Qingtian, but modern law places more emphasis on procedure and active participation of individuals. Additionally, the article explores changes in legal perspectives, the relationship between law and practice, and how to coexist with "bad laws."

• 🎯 Contradiction in Legal Perspectives: Ordinary people desire justice from the law but also feel unfamiliar, fearful, and disappointed.

• 💡 ==Procedural Justice and Adversarial System: Modern law pursues procedural fairness, requiring parties to actively participate rather than relying on a judge like Bao Qingtian.==

• 👥 Ordinary People's Participation in Law: The driving force behind the progress of the rule of law comes from individuals who focus on specific issues, actively promoting discussions and improvements in the law concerning their areas of concern.

In recent years, many people have begun to catch up on legal knowledge. Legal scholar Zhai Zhiyong's analyses of hot topics on "Looking Ideal" often help us clarify our thoughts from a legal perspective. In the article "It’s Necessary to Talk About the Issue of 'Article 20'," he analyzes the adaptation of the film "Article 20" from real events, particularly its weakening of lawyers and strengthening of prosecutors, a film that tells the story of the rule of law inadvertently returns to the public's expectations of "fair judges."

The film's twists and turns reflect the public's contradictory understanding of the law: on the one hand, there is a desire for the rule of law, while on the other hand, there is a sense of unfamiliarity, fear, and disappointment towards the law. People oscillate between viewing the law as the "embodiment of justice" and a "complex black box." So what does the law look like in the real world?

Starting from this contradictory "view of the rule of law," "problem youth" had a conversation with Zhai Zhiyong. How can we understand the logic and limitations of "legislation" from the perspective of "legislators"? In the process of improving the rule of law, how should individuals use the law to protect themselves?

1. Why do people always long for "fair judges"?

Yang Shao: Our view of the rule of law seems to have a profound contradiction: despite having entered a so-called rule of law society for over forty years, the public still has much ignorance, fear, and disappointment regarding the law itself. The recently released "Article 20" during the Spring Festival is a typical example; although it is a film about the rule of law, the creators inadvertently express a longing for "fair judges." What do you think about this contradiction? What are the reasons for this contradiction?

Zhai Zhiyong: The understanding and imagination of the ideal legal image differ completely between the East and the West. The legal image that Chinese people were most familiar with in the past was Bao Qingtian, especially as shaped by film and television. When we were children, whenever "fair judges" appeared on TV, it felt particularly comforting: if you had a grievance, he would stand up for you. In this process, there was no need for significant effort; just beat the drum to voice your grievance and wait, and the justice you expected would be realized.

However, this is completely different from the design of modern law; judges do not actively help you achieve justice. ==Modern legal design particularly emphasizes procedure, which actually requires judges to step back and let the parties fight for their rights, thus demanding that everyone actively maintain their own interests.==

In contrast, what is the biggest difference between the Western goddess of justice and Bao Qingtian? It is not gender or skin color, but the eyes. Bao Qingtian has a heavenly eye on his forehead, meaning he can see through everything, while the goddess of justice has her eyes covered; she does not actively look but passively listens to the statements of the parties.

The proactive and discerning legal image of Bao Qingtian caters to and shapes the public's expectations of the law. I often say that the law is the "most familiar stranger" around us because we always expect a "fair judge" to help us decide, and once this expectation is not met, it easily leads to another extreme—aversion and alienation from the law: the law should realize justice for me, but it cannot, thus the law is unjust.

Therefore, when we watch films and television dramas related to the law, we are often stirred up, internally shouting, "Justice may be delayed, but it will not be absent," only to return to reality and find that the law cannot even solve small problems, leading to the feeling that the law is unjust. ==This is not the most authentic state of the law. The law is neither as just as you expect nor as dark as you imagine; the real law may lie somewhere in between.==

Yang Shao: The law in reality seems to have a very high practical threshold, with a complex language system, making it easy for ordinary people to feel "intimidated." You have also mentioned in your program that legal illiteracy does not distinguish between knowledge and wealth; even professional legal practitioners may be legally illiterate. Because there are simply too many legal texts, and each specialized field has its own lawyers, there are barriers between fields. Why has modern law formed such a large cognitive blind spot?

Zhai Zhiyong: I introduced a perspective at the beginning of the program to help us understand the law—the perspective of the legislator. Because often people understand the law from the perspective of a law-abider, we are more concerned about whether we are breaking the law or whether someone has set a legal trap for us. We often only care about the legal fragments related to our own interests, which leads to our understanding of the law being judged by "whether interests are realized"; if realized, the law is good, if not, it is bad. The perspective of the legislator requires us to understand the overall appearance and position of the law in modern society.

I have an inappropriate analogy: the law constitutes the operating system of the entire modern society. Just like computers and phones, you need an operating system to run various programs. If the law is the operating system of modern society, then in traditional Chinese society, it was ethics and morality, while in medieval Western society, it was religion. Because modern society cannot rely on ethics and religion to form the underlying rules of society, the law takes their place. We all live within this vast system of law, and the justice we expect is actually the result of complex legal procedures within the system.

I particularly like the parable Kafka wrote in "The Trial": a peasant arrives at the castle of the law, wanting to enter. The door is open, and the doorkeeper says, "You can enter, but you have to wait a while." Along the way, the doorkeeper tells him, "You can go in, but there is a more fearsome doorkeeper inside." The peasant waits at the door, and in the end, he waits for most of his life without entering. Just before he dies, he asks the doorkeeper, "Why did I wait here for most of my life when the door was open, but in the end, I was the only one who came?" The doorkeeper replies, "Because this door was meant for you."

There are various interpretations of this parable. My interpretation is that the peasant's lifelong fear of entering the castle of law is actually a kind of fear, because he has no overall understanding of the castle of law; he has only heard that there are stricter guards inside, so he does not dare to take another step closer. I think that often, modern people's fear and rejection of the law also stem from this fear, feeling that stepping into the threshold of law is a difficult thing.

This gap is primarily cognitive; people are not very willing to approach the law, not because they cannot learn it. Compared to the law, people prefer to hear about history and politics, which does not mean that the latter two have a lower threshold; rather, we have an overall understanding of history and politics. Therefore, the legislator's thinking is to first understand the basic operational mechanisms of the legal system as a whole, why it is designed this way, and then focus on the specific law you care about, whether it is criminal law or civil law, to better understand it.

2. The Progress of the Rule of Law is Often Driven by Those Who Are Serious About Their Own Interests

Yang Shao: Speaking of specific laws, today's young people's legal awareness has generally improved; laws like the "Labor Law," "Marriage Law," and "Wildlife Protection Law" have seen more discussions compared to the past, and there are calls for more detailed legislation. On the other hand, there seems to be less discussion about more fundamental rights and concepts, such as some contents in the "Constitution," perhaps because they are seen as not easily changeable and less visible in relation to specific life. What do you think about this change in legal perspectives?

Zhai Zhiyong: There have indeed been many changes, including significant differences between my generation and my teachers' generation, those born in the 1950s and 1960s. My teachers' generation had a strong sense of national sentiment and liked to focus on grand issues, while their criticism of our generation is that we focus more on specific and academic issues. Compared to today’s young people, we may have cared about more grand issues, while young people prefer to focus on specific problems.

I believe this is a societal advancement. Everyone cares more about things related to themselves, pays more attention to issues that concern them, and is willing to spend time and energy on these matters; such a society can gradually progress. Looking back at our society's rule of law construction over the past forty years, it has actually been the accumulation of specific cases that has led to today's achievements.

This achievement is not something that can be realized just by the National People's Congress enacting a few laws or legal scholars writing a few books. There are about 30 million cases each year, involving parties, lawyers, and judges. In this process, you will find that the people who truly drive legal progress are precisely those who are serious about their own interests.

Whether it is marriage, labor, or environmental protection, the attention and promotion of young people are very important forces. As for other issues, such as freedom of speech, people may still care but cannot participate, making it difficult to promote change. Perhaps scholars should pay more attention to such issues because they are the mechanisms for realization. Different groups focus on different topics; as long as everyone is willing to spend time and energy to maintain their interests in the issues they care about, this is a normal state of progress in a rule of law society.

Yang Shao: You particularly emphasize and encourage ordinary people's participation in law, and you also believe that the participation space provided by the current legal system is much larger than we imagine. Can you start from a specific mechanism? For example, you mentioned in your program that China's judicial organs implement a procedural justice system, which is a significant change compared to the past. How did this change happen, and what does it mean?

Zhai Zhiyong: Okay, let’s first talk about the issue of procedural justice. Here, procedure refers to the adversarial system in the litigation process, which emphasizes the passive role of the judge; the judge observes the efforts of both parties to argue and ultimately makes a ruling based on the arguments presented. For example, if one party's evidence is insufficient, even if they seem more reasonable, they may still lose. However, in the 1980s, when China had just restored the rule of law, the litigation system was an inquisitorial system, emphasizing the proactive role of the judge; the judge had to actively discover the facts of the case, determine the rights and wrongs of both parties, and even actively collect evidence, which is somewhat similar to the earlier mentioned "Bao Qingtian."

When I was studying (in 1998), our litigation system was in a transitional period from the inquisitorial system to the adversarial system, emphasizing the role of the parties and lawyers. From a professional perspective, the adversarial system allows parties to better exercise their subjective initiative, and in the process of arguing, they can help judges clarify the facts of the case and articulate their reasoning, avoiding a paternalistic decision by the judge. Of course, the downside is that you have to take the initiative to achieve the justice you want, investing time, energy, and money.

This actually goes back to the earlier discussion about the differences between Bao Qingtian and the goddess of justice; we cannot expect judges to be like Bao Qingtian. The design of modern law cannot be based on the assumption that "judges are good people." Judges, like us, are ordinary people who may do bad things or good things. Therefore, as a legislator, what kind of legal system do you need to construct to ensure that judges who may do bad things can still achieve the justice that parties expect? This is a very important issue in legal design, which is why we emphasize procedural justice, evidence, and adversarial litigation.

3. The Formulation of a Law Also Depends on the Progress of Society

Yang Shao: We have talked a lot about concepts related to law; next, I want to discuss a specific law, the "Civil Code." The "Civil Code" was officially passed on May 28, 2020, and it has undergone a long and tortuous process from its first drafting in 1954 to its final establishment. At the end of last year, Mr. Jiang Ping, one of the main drafters of the "Civil Code," passed away, prompting many to reflect on this code. First, I would like to ask you to explain why there is a distinction between public law and private law, given that the "Civil Code" belongs to private law?

Zhai Zhiyong: This is related to the introduction of Western law after the reforms in the late Qing Dynasty. The modern world's law generally has two main lines: one is the civil law system, which originates from Roman law and has gradually spread through France and Germany, and was introduced to us through Japan during the late Qing Dynasty. The other line is the common law system, also known as Anglo-American law or maritime law, which is mainly used in countries like the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and some former British colonies.

Roman law initially distinguished between public law and private law, where laws related to state power are public law, and laws related to private rights are private law, also known as civil law. The "Criminal Law" and "Administrative Litigation Law" we talk about today are actually public law because they involve the allocation of public power and the relationship between public and private power. However, this distinction is mainly academic. Today, many laws cannot be easily classified as public or private law, such as the "Information Protection Law," which involves both.

Yang Shao: The famous legal scholar Mr. Wang Zejian once said in a conversation with Mr. Jiang Ping in 2017 that "the greatest change in mainland China is not in the development of public law, but in the fundamental reform and reconstruction of private law." From this perspective, the "Civil Code" was initiated in 1954, 1962, 1979, and 2001 but was halted for various reasons. Can we say that our private law construction is far behind public law?

Zhai Zhiyong: First of all, we can say that private law is not behind public law; the two should develop synchronously, and in some sense, private law may even be more advanced than public law. Returning to the establishment of the "Civil Code," we must distinguish between "civil law" and "civil code." A law called a code often means that it encompasses all laws in that legal field and categorizes them, which requires very complex and sophisticated legal drafting techniques.

The absence of a "Civil Code" does not mean there was no "civil law." Today's "Civil Code" is actually a compilation of several laws drafted since the reform and opening up. For example, our earliest General Principles of Civil Law later became the General Principles of Civil Law in the "Civil Code." Similarly, laws like the "Property Law," "Contract Law," "Marriage Law," and "Inheritance Law" existed before the "Civil Code"; the "Civil Code" merely integrates these laws into one.

The drafting and establishment of a foundational law actually depend on two issues: first, the overall development of the economic life of society. Why was the "Property Law" relatively late in being enacted (2007)? Moreover, there was significant controversy during its formulation because under the premise of a public ownership economy, it was very difficult to draft the "Property Law"; many things did not have ownership, making it hard to handle. Therefore, the drafting of laws must match the overall state of society to be naturally realized.

Second is the technical aspect of legal drafting. The drafting of laws is not as easy as we imagine. Imagine you are the head of a certain field and want to draft a certain regulation; you have to consider the various complex aspects of society that this regulation may involve and systematically process them in a textual form, which is very complex and difficult.

Latecomer countries have an advantage in that they can copy the laws of other countries. However, the problem with "copying homework" is that laws must be applicable in practice; most of the time, the laws we copy may not solve problems in practice, leading to a large number of "laws not enforced." Laws may not be executed in practice because they do not closely align with reality.

Therefore, the drafting of laws often lags behind or is delayed because legislators have not clarified the issues and cannot hastily enact a law, leading to continuous delays. The drafting of the "Civil Code" belongs to this situation; although we have initiated the drafting of the "Civil Code" four times, each time we found that there was neither a social foundation nor the technical capacity for drafting, making it impossible to produce a systematic and applicable "Civil Code."

So why were we able to draft it in 2020? The reason is that before this, we had already compiled all the contents of the "Civil Code" through "individual laws," and drafting the "Civil Code" was merely integrating these laws into a system and rearranging them. Of course, the biggest controversy here is whether personality rights should be separately compiled. This is an issue of legislative capacity and technical structure, not a substantive legal issue.

Yang Shao: How should we understand this statement?

Zhai Zhiyong: There is no dispute about the need to "protect personality rights"; however, what personality rights exist and how to protect them were already addressed in the previous "General Principles of Civil Law." During the drafting of the "Civil Code," the controversy was whether personality rights should remain in the "General Principles of Civil Law" or be separately compiled like the "Property Law" and "Contract Law."

Those advocating for separate compilation believe that only in this way can the importance of personality rights be highlighted and better protected; those opposed argue that personality rights involve basic personality, and personality is the subject in judicial matters, which is usually resolved in the general principles, so there is no need to establish a separate compilation. This is entirely a technical issue related to the drafting of the code and its structure, and it does not involve substantive content. Legal scholars have no disagreement about the need to protect everyone's personality rights and the specific content of protection; the debate is actually about a drafting technical issue that will not affect the practice of law.

Yang Shao: If personality rights are separately compiled, will there really be no more positive impact on future judicial practice? Or are the scholars who insisted on separately compiling personality rights, such as Mr. Jiang Ping, merely calling for a formal change?

Zhai Zhiyong: I don't think there will be any substantial change. Of course, formal changes cannot be said to be without significance; when you particularly highlight something, it certainly means that it needs to be emphasized. I also acknowledge that it has symbolic and formal significance.

However, will highlighting personality rights lead to better protection in future judicial practice? These are two different questions; practice does not work that way. What it was originally like, it remains the same in practice.

4. Many Social Issues Cannot Rely on "Legislation" to Solve

Yang Shao: "What it was originally like, it remains the same in practice" sounds a bit disillusioning. Because we usually think that legislation is the most significant means of solving problems, whenever there is a dispute, people will call for legislation. However, are there many issues that cannot be solved through legislation? What kind of twists and turns must a law go through to reach a certain level of consensus in the judicial community and among the public?

Zhai Zhiyong: Many issues cannot necessarily be solved by legislation. For example, the protection of personality rights and property rights, there has already been a long period of judicial practice regarding property and personality rights before this, and these will not see significant changes with the passage of laws or separate compilations, because the substantive content of the law itself has not changed significantly; it is merely a systematic expression of what already existed.

To give another example, within personality rights, there is a category called the right to a name, which specifies which types of names will be protected, while our laws do not protect particularly strange names. There was a case where a couple named their child "Bei Yan Yun Yi" because they liked poetry. However, the public security bureau refused to register it because our naming tradition requires either the father's surname or the mother's surname. Such judicial traditions will not change with the introduction of the "Civil Code." Therefore, I repeatedly emphasize that there are significant differences between our legal system, concepts, and practices.

Sometimes concepts advance while the system does not keep up; sometimes the system exists but practice does not follow; and there is also the possibility that judicial practice advances ahead of the system. For example, recently, we are still discussing whether works created by artificial intelligence should enjoy copyright in the system, but judicial practice can resolve this. In judicial practice, we still regard artificial intelligence as a tool; if you use artificial intelligence to create a painting, and there is your intellectual input, then it is certainly protected by the "Copyright Law."

Yang Shao: Can we understand it this way: the law at the point of its enactment is like a "fruit picker"?

Zhai Zhiyong: Yes, and good legislation must be like this. It must have judicial practice first, and then systematically summarize the successful experiences from practice. Bad legislation is often "premature legislation," meaning I want to change something, so I enact a law first, specifying how it should be done. "Premature legislation" is unlikely to achieve good practice because society does not necessarily develop in the direction imagined by the legislator.

For example, the most typical case is the "Bankruptcy Law." We had the "Bankruptcy Law" in the late 1980s, stating that to develop a market economy, enterprises must be allowed to go bankrupt, so the "Bankruptcy Law" was enacted. In practice, many enterprises did not go bankrupt according to the "Bankruptcy Law"; a large number of enterprises could not go bankrupt, such as state-owned enterprises, because they had many employees. Many private enterprises also could not go bankrupt due to debts and other unresolved issues. As a result, a large number of "zombie enterprises" were born.

This is also a difference between the civil law system and the common law system. The common law system emphasizes that judges follow precedents; it does not particularly emphasize systematicity, which means solving one problem at a time. In common law countries, legislation arises from a large number of court judgments; if they believe that a judgment is no longer sufficient to solve such problems, they can legislate to address it. This system tends to be more aligned with practice.

The civil law system emphasizes top-down legislation more, and legislation often exists in a disconnection from social practice, leading to a large number of "laws not enforced." It is like a "parent" that establishes many rules, but people do not necessarily follow them in daily life.

Yang Shao: The public seems to expect a "parent" as well; for example, common comments under news articles are "it’s time to manage this" or "XXX is not above the law," which brings us back to our earlier discussion that people's understanding of "legislation" is also about "managing for me."

Zhai Zhiyong: The view that "legislation can solve problems" has profoundly influenced today's students. When they write papers discussing a problem, the conclusion is always that we need to enact a certain law. However, in my view, this is not a particularly appropriate legal perspective.

Legislators do not have enough wisdom to understand and regulate complex social life, and they must also consider the constant changes in social life. No one possesses such wisdom to create rules that seamlessly fit social practice. Legislators are also ordinary people; if they sit in a room, copy and paste, and then solicit opinions, such legal texts have not been tested in practice.

Therefore, we also say that the legislative process is complex and cautious because once legislation is enacted, it cannot be changed overnight. Many issues should be left to the judiciary rather than legislation, which is why the importance of the judiciary is increasing in modern rule-of-law countries; the judiciary has much flexibility in solving specific problems and can treat different issues differently. In this process, the mechanism for solving problems is often better than legislation.

5. How to Coexist with "Bad Laws"?

Yang Shao: Many people's expectations of legislation may also be related to the legal environment in recent years. On the one hand, there are many loopholes in the law, and on the other hand, some unreasonable laws are in place. Recently, with the arrest of a Guizhou entrepreneur for "disturbing public order" while seeking payment from the government, public opinion has again discussed whether this regulation should be abolished. How do you view the idea that "bad laws are still laws"? Or how should we coexist with "bad laws"?

Zhai Zhiyong: If Article 20 existed early on but was not applied correctly, then the "crime of disturbing public order" is the opposite; it has been applied in an excessively broad manner. This is also a classic case in our discussion of whether "bad laws are still laws." From practice, the "crime of disturbing public order" is indeed a bad law because many people who cannot find a basis for criminal charges use it to punish others.

For ordinary people, when bad laws exist and are in effect, they can only try to avoid falling into this trap while actively promoting the repeal of such bad laws. Just like Article 20, there were discussions about it long ago, and later the procuratorate faced a lot of pressure because whenever a case emerged, there would be much debate. By the time of the "Yu Huan case," the debate had an effect; people were still dissatisfied with the second-instance result (from life imprisonment to five years), and much pressure was placed on the Supreme Procuratorate. Therefore, in the "Kunshan Long Brother case," the Kunshan People's Procuratorate recognized that Yu Haiming acted in self-defense.

However, later I heard from a lawyer friend that even after this, there was not a complete change; many places still do not fully apply self-defense; whenever there is harm, especially if someone dies, it is often considered excessive self-defense. Therefore, this change still relies on ordinary people and experts to voice and promote through the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

In fact, the construction of the rule of law in modern countries has always been promoted through individual cases. Today, we only see the results of other countries; if you trace back to the rule of law processes in those countries, it has also gone through hundreds of years of continuous struggle. Some countries work hard and progress faster; some do not work hard and progress slower, but no country's rule of law construction comes from thin air.

Yang Shao: "Striving is more useful than waiting," which has been reflected in some moments over the past few years. Finally, I want to ask you how ordinary people can use the law to protect themselves, especially when facing institutions and departments with unequal power relations. In recent years, there have been many instances on social media of people holding their ID cards to report issues; it seems that compared to the "Administrative Litigation Law," reporting and administrative complaints are more effective. What do you think about this contrast?

Zhai Zhiyong: I think there is a media dissemination effect; reporting and complaints are more easily reported by the media. However, for example, if a person goes to court to file an administrative lawsuit, as long as they do not publish it in the media, no one knows. Although administrative litigation cases are relatively fewer compared to civil litigation, there are still hundreds of thousands of them each year. The number of cases where government agencies lose is not as many as we think; according to some previous statistics, the peak may be around 20-30%, which is already a high proportion to some extent, as not every case is a mistake by the administrative agency.

In the past, we saw many cases of administrative agencies losing on the court judgment website. For example, I mentioned in my program a case in Yulin City, Shaanxi, where a vendor selling "toxic celery" for 20 yuan was fined 66,000 yuan. Such penalties for pesticide exceedance exist nationwide; as far as I know, some merchants in Fujian sued the market regulatory authorities for disproportionate penalties and ultimately won. Of course, there are also similar cases where the litigation results vary in different places.

Once you enter litigation, it is a complex procedure; it requires time and effort, and you may not necessarily win. Using the media can speed up the process, but it may also backfire. In daily life, when one's rights are infringed, what kind of approach should be taken to protect one's rights? Whether to maintain or not is a choice each person makes after considering their own interests.

For individuals, protecting rights certainly has costs. Of course, not protecting rights also has costs: first, your rights are infringed, and second, there are subsequent costs.

As a legal practitioner, I believe that within one's capacity, one should certainly protect their rights. Because the realization of one's rights can only rely on oneself; one cannot hope that others will protect their rights, nor can one hope that the law will automatically and proactively protect your rights; these are overly optimistic and narrow expectations of the law we have had in the past. The law does not execute itself; it requires your initiation and investment.

This article comes from the WeChat public account: Youthology (ID: openyouthology001), dialogue: Zhai Zhiyong (Professor at the School of Law, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics), Yang Shao.