The US and China handle legal interpretations differently.
China and the United States handle legal interpretations differently. It will not surprise most Americans to learn that there are no real judicial and legislative separation of powers in China as we have in the United States. China and the United States also come from different rules of legal thought; China’s legal system is based on the Civil Law principle and the United States is based on the Common Law principle.
Chinese Legislative Review: In China the judiciary plays a less important role than with the American system. In China the power to interpret laws is not an independent power but is in the hands of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). The Chinese Constitution states:
"Article 67 The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress exercises the following functions and powers: (1) To interpret the Constitution and supervise its enforcement; (2) To enact and amend statutes with the exception of those which should be enacted by the National People's Congress; (3) To enact, when the National People's Congress is not in session, partial supplements and amendments to statutes enacted by the National People's Congress provided that they do not contravene the basic principles of these statutes; (4) To interpret statutes:
Article 67 and points 1, 2 and 4 state essentially that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) has the power to interpret, enact, or amend the statues. This power is given to the NPCSC and not to the court system. Therefore the role of the courts in China is to apply the laws as enacted by the NPCSC--not to make law or set precedents.
Legislative Interpretation Comparison: At the core of the differences between the Chinese and US legal systems is how the Common Law judges look at statutory interpretation and how they apply general principles such as the literal rule, the mischief rule and the Golden Rule. In common law countries such as the United States, generally speaking, the courts hold the interpretation of the judges in high regard, while also considering the laws enacted by the legislature.
On the contrary, in China, the power to interpret legislation as stated in the constitution does not belong to the courts but to the legislature or more specifically the NPCSC. Therefore at the core comparison between the two is how each view the role of the courts and legislative interpretations. In speaking of some of the differences, Yang Xiaonan in the Hong Kong Law Journal commented:
"The Marxist view is that “law in nature is the will of the ruling class” The principles of checks and balances and separation of powers are never applicable within the Chinese polity. The legislature is thus supposed to be the ideal interpreter of “the will” which was reflected in laws. Since the will of the people is the final resource of laws, judicial restraint on the legislature -- the representatives of the people, “seemed to conflict with fundamental assumptions of socialist jurisprudence” The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), rather than the Supreme People's Court (SPC), is the final interpreter in the legal system of the PRC.”
It is interesting to note that perhaps a common goal of both China and the United States law is to consider the will of the people as an important element in legislative interpretations. China believes the people’s will is implemented in the People’s Congresses and not the judiciary system. The United States on the other hand also views the will of the people as not only our right to vote but our right to have a system that is set up with proper checks and balances. Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States eloquently stated the view this way,
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Americans view the law and in particular how the law is interpreted as a matter of their individual freedom, or as Jefferson said the rights of the individual. Because there are three branches of government no single arm or branch of the government can ever go above the will of the people and take away American’s individual freedom. After all, in the American court system, a person to thought to be innocent until proven guilty, this in essence is the will of the people, our rights exercised through checks and balances in our system. The Chinese on the other hand view the will of people as being exercised through the “people’s democratic dictatorship” which enacted through the legal legislature of the NPCSC. Their courts do not interpret the laws but merely apply the law according to the facts given them.