Does the publication of judgments on the Internet change the outcome of administrative litigation cases? A DID-model-based analysis

Abstract

This article analyses the influence of the publication of judgments on the Internet on the results of administrative litigation cases in China. Due to the particularity of administrative litigation, courts are often subject to the restriction of public power in the trial process, and defendants are in a stronger position than plaintiffs. In 2010, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the Regulations on the Issuance of Judicial Documents on the Internet by the People’s Courts, which for the first time imposed clear and detailed regulations on the publication of judgments. This Regulation promotes judicial openness and establishes judicial credibility, which is conducive to balancing the litigation status of the plaintiff and the defendant. By sampling 7463 judgment documents from 2012 to 2015 on China Judgment Online, this study applies a difference-in-differences model to determine the influence of the Issuance of Judgments on the Internet Regulation on administrative litigation by form of closure, the plaintiff winning rate, and the withdrawal rate of the plaintiff. The implementation of this Regulation was found to significantly increase the rate of judgment and reduce the plaintiff withdrawal rate, significant impacting the trial results of administrative litigation cases.

---

Keywords

• Judgments online
• Administrative litigation
• Judicial reform
• Judicial transparency
• DID model
• China

References

1. Ahl, B., & Sprick, D. (2018). Towards judicial transparency in China: The new public access database for court decisions. China Information, 32(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X17744544.
2. Carlo Bertot, J., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012). Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e‐government. Transforming government: people, process and policy, 6(1), 78-91.https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161211214831.
3. Chang, Y.L., & Liu, Y.M. (2018). Administrative ranks of the government, judicial intervenor’s ability and court verdicts: Evidence from court documents of the administrative litigation, Journal of Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, 33(02), 99-111. https://www.cqvip.com/qk/83089a/20182/675150194.html.
4. Chen, L., Liu, Z., & Tang, Y. (2021). Judicial Transparency as Judicial Centralization: Mass Publicity of Court Decisions in China. Journal of Contemporary China, 31(137), 726-739.https:// doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.2010871.
5. Chen, T.H., (2024). Administrative Litigation in China: Assessing the Chief Officials' Appearance System, CHINA QUARTERLY, (02), Early Access, https://doi.10.1017/S0305741024000018.
6. Fang, W.W. (2013). The progress and review on the study of our government information publicity, Chinese Public Administration, (12), 111-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3782/j.issn.1006-0863.2013.12.21.
7. Geyh, C.G. (2014). Judicial independence as an organizing principle. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030849.
8. He, H.B. (2012). Troubled administrative proceedings, ECUPL Journal, (02), 86-96. https://www.cqvip.com/qk/82632a/20122/41309665.html.

9. He, H.B. (2018). How much progress can legislation bring? The 2014 amendment of the administrative litigation law of PRC, Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 33(03), 26-43+190-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.13613/j.cnki.qhdz.002737.
10. He, X.R., Liu, S.D., & Yang, J.W. (2014), Understanding and application of the regulations on the publication of judicial documents by the People's Courts on the internet, People’s Judicature, (01), 23-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.19684/j.cnki.1002-4603.2014.01.007.
11. Hershkoff, H, (2023), The Oligarchic Courthouse: Jurisdiction, Corporate Power, and Democratic Decline, MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, (10),1-54, https://doi10.36644/mlr.122.1.oligarchic.
12. Helmke, G., & Rosenbluth, F. (2009). Regimes and the rule of law: Judicial independence in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 345-366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.040907.121521.
13. Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006), Transparency: The key to better governance? [Monograph]. British Academy, issue (or whole) number. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197263839.001.0001.
14. Hu, Y.M. (2015), Research on the conflict of rights from the perspective of disclosure of judgments, verdicts and reconciliation statements, Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, (03), 68-72. https://www.cqvip.com/qk/97002x/201503/665028112.html.
15. Hu, Y.M. (2015). Study on the disclosure of adjudication documents, Social Science Front, (04), 275-278. https://www.cqvip.com/qk/82161x/201504/664236276.html.
16. Huang, Q.H. (2013). A study on the status of administrative litigation trials at first instance. A statistical analysis of 2767 judgments in 40 courts. Tsinghua Law Journal ,7(04),73-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-9280.2013.04.007.
17. Işık, C., Ongan, S., Islam, H., Jabeen, G., & Pinzon, S. (2024a). Is economic growth in East Asia pacific and South Asia ESG factors based and aligned growth? Sustainable Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2910.
18. Işık, C., Ongan, S., Islam, H., & Pinzon, S., & Jabeen, G. (2024b). Navigating Sustainability: Unveiling the Interconnected Dynamics of ESGs and SDGs in BRICS-11. Sustainable Development, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2977.
19. Işık, C., Ongan, S., & Islam, H., (2024c). A new pathway to sustainability: Integrating economic dimension (ECON) into ESG factors as (ECON-ESG) and aligned with sustainable development goals (SDGs). Journal of Ekonomi, 34-39. https://doi.org/10.58251/ekonomi.1450860.
20. Işık, C., Simionescu, M., Ongan, S., Radulescu, M., Yousaf, Z., Rehman, A., ... & Ahmad, M. (2023). Renewable energy, economic freedom and economic policy uncertainty: New evidence from a dynamic panel threshold analysis for the G-7 and BRIC countries. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 37(9), 3367-3382.
21. Işık, C., Aydın, E., Dogru, T., Rehman, A., Alvarado, R., Ahmad, M., & Irfan, M. (2021). The nexus between team culture, innovative work behaviour and tacit knowledge sharing: Theory and evidence. Sustainability, 13(8), 4333.
22. Jiang, B.X. (2019), The development of administrative litigation in thirty years. A perspective from the Supreme People’s Court, China Law Review, (02), 9-14. https://medlib.jnu.edu.cn/s/net/cnki/kns/G.https/kcms2/article/abstract?v=l-44aStnccA3ktgEEk1B0Dazhj7wut4ONqfVFPCWx8FP8ct _zmuoYpieIQdydWVLukrxibitmf7SBT_RpT0YA07ffqBkXjEAU068F-8o_kD7lWuW61mgz42N8on8TajqS22uJNW9FqcEy5-2YMzj3Q== &uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS.
23. Li, H.L., & Luo, W.L. (1997). Legal reflections on irregularly withdrawn administrative cases, Administrative Law Review, (04), 69-74. https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=1002488634.
24. Li, J. (2013). Suing the Leviathan—An Empirical Analysis of the Changing Rate of Administrative Litigation in China. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(4), 815-846. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12029.
25. Li, W. (2017). On the examination and perfection of judicial documents in China, Lecture Notes in Management Science, (77), 159-162. DOI https://doi:10.26602/lnms.2017.77.159.
26. Lin, G.H., & Wang, J. (2013). Online adjudication documents: The trio of open, informed and monitored, People’s Judicature, (23), 9-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.19684/j.cnki.1002-4603.2013.23.004.
27. Liu, Z.X. (2003). A critique of local protectionism in China’s judiciary: A critique of the judicial reform idea of “nationalization of judicial power”, Chinese Journal of Law, 25(01): 83-98. https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=8905785.
28. Long, X.N., & Wang, J. (2014). local judicial protectionism in China: An empirical study of People’s Supreme Court IP cases, China Economic Studies, (03), 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.19365/j.issn1000-4181.2014.03.001.
29. Ma, C., Yu, X.H., & He, H.B. (2016). Big data analysis: Report on the online disclosure of judicial documents in China, China Law Review, (04), 195-246. https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=670326819.
30. Ma, H.D. (2019). The value of administrative litigation law for the times. Thirty years of administrative litigation: looking back and moving forward, China Law Review, (02), 19-28. http://dx.doi.org/CNKI:SUN:FLPL.0.2019-02-007.
31. Mulgan, R. (2007). Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public administration, 85(3), 569-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00663.x.
32. O'Brien, K.J., & Li, L. (2004). Suing the local state: administrative litigation in rural China. The China Journal, (51), 75-96. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/3182147.
33. Shen, Y. (2007), Improvements and refinements in the way cases are concluded. The principle of facilitating dispute resolution, People's Judicature, (11), 72-77. http://dx.doi.org/CNKI:SUN:RMSF.0.2007-11-020.
34. Sun, L.S., & Xing, S.Y. (1996), Why do administrative lawsuits remain high when they are settled by withdrawal?. A survey and analysis of 365 withdrawn administrative cases, Administrative Law Review, (03), 34-35.
35. Tang, Y., & Liu, J.Z. (2019). Mass publicity of Chinese court decisions. China Review, 19(2), 15-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26639656.
36. Willis, S. (2023), The right to be heard: can courts listen actively and efficiently to civil litigants? university of new south wales law journal, (10), 872-901, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3879-0699.
37. Wu, Y.T. (2018). The consequences and overcoming of the bad game played in the dismissal of administrative litigation——The investigation of the cases of tax administrative litigation, Journal of Wuyi University, 37(08), 21-28.
38. Xie, Z.Y. (2010), Withdrawal of charges in administrative litigations: Problem and solution, Administrative Law Review, (02), 37-43.
39. Yang, J.J., Qin, H. & He, H. B. (2019), Chinese practice of making judgment documents public online——Progress, problems and improvements, China Law Review, (06), 125-147. https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=7100645649.
40. Ying, T. (2023), Does digital transformation promote labor structure optimization in manufacturing enterprises? An analysis of China's pilot policy using time-varying DID model, KYBERNETES, (10), Early Access, https://doi:10.1108/K-05-2023-0747.
41. Yu, L.Y. (2014). On the amendment of the administrative procedure law, Tsinghua Law Journal, 8(03), 5-19. Zhang, Q. (2003). The people's court in transition: the prospects of the Chinese judicial reform. Journal of Contemporary China, 12(34), 69-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560305466.
42. Zhang, W. Y., & Ke, R. Z. (2002). Reverse choice in lawsuits and its explanation——An empirical study of written judgments on contract dispute by a grassroots court, Social Sciences in China, (02), 31-43+205-206.
43. Zhang, Y.H. & Chen, L. (2015). Online court records from the perspective of making government affairs public), Chinese Public Administration, (03), 47-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3782/j.issn.1006-0863.2015.03.09.
44. Zhao, H.X., & Li, J.J. (2015). Analysis of current situation of court judgment online public and direction argument, Hebei Law Science, 33(12), 190-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.16494/j.cnki.1002-3933.2015.12.018.
45. Zhao, Q. (2012). The protection of personal information in judgments online, Legal Forum, 27(06), 115-121. Zuo, W.M. (2018). Towards big data legal research, Chinese Journal of Law, 40(04), 139-150.