<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. Promulgation of Local Versions of the Guiding Opinions

The adoption of the ACLA Guiding Opinions immediately prompted the promulgation of comparable regulations at the local level in several municipalities and provinces, such as Henan, Guangdong, Shenyang, Shenzhen, and Hangzhou. Although some of these regulations have not officially been made public, media reports have disclosed all regulations requiring lawyers to seek instructions and report to local judicial bureaus when handling “sensitive” or “mass” cases.

Many of the local regulations appear considerably more explicit and restrictive than the Guiding Opinions. For instance, whereas the latter instruct lawyers to “exercise caution” in their dealings with foreign organizations, local variants state that “without having received approval from the relevant departments, [lawyers] must not accept any interview with foreign media.”¹¹²   Similarly, whereas the Guiding Opinions mandate that lawyers uphold a “great sense of social responsibility,” a local variation instructs that “in cases that have a political influence … the lawyer handling the case must respect political and propaganda discipline.”¹¹³ Local regulations also widen the scope of mass cases considered “sensitive” by including catch-all clauses such as “important cases designated by leadership organs”¹¹⁴—that is, the CPC—or cases “that have extensive influence in this province or for all the country,” “that attract a high degree of media attention, or that have a big influence on the actions of the government.”¹¹⁵

Local regulations also make the criteria for imposing penalties on lawyers more explicit:  “[I]f a lawyer violates the political discipline, the propaganda discipline or causes problems in a mass case incident, he must be disciplined … and receive a suspension penalty.”¹¹⁶

Henan province

On March 18, 2006, as the Guiding Opinions awaited promulgation, the Henan Judicial Bureau issued trial regulations on “Strengthening the Supervision and Guidance for Lawyers’ Representation in Important and Sensitive Cases and Mass Cases.”¹¹⁷ The regulations mandate that lawyers report to judicial bureaus when handling “important, mass, or sensitive cases.” These three categories include cases that affect the “government’s image,” criminal cases involving high-level cadres, and “cases involving collective interests that can reach 20 people or more.”¹¹⁸

The regulations instruct judicial bureaus to “strengthen their supervision” of lawyers, and “handle these cases with a high degree of political responsibility.”¹¹⁹ The judicial bureaus are required to prevent lawyers handling sensitive cases from “aggravating a situation,” or “using domestic or international media to inflame public opinion”; to prevent the general public being “incited to oppose the government,” or to “create problems through mass cases”; and to prevent the “use of proxy cases to attack the party or the judicial system.”¹²⁰

Lawyers handling “important, sensitive, or mass cases” must submit to the same requirements detailed in the national Guiding Opinions, such as reporting and informing judicial bureaus and government departments and accepting their instructions. The Henan regulations also state that lawyers associations in the province will organize trainings on how to handle the Guiding Opinions according to “political discipline” demands.

Shenyang municipality

In April 2006, a month after the ACLA adopted the Guiding Opinions, the judicial bureau of Shenyang municipality, Liaoning province, issued regulations regarding the activities of lawyers in “important, difficult, and sensitive cases.”¹²¹ The Shenyang regulations established procedures for seeking instructions and submitting reports to the judicial bureau so as to “comprehensively advance the role of lawyers in protecting social order and building a harmonious society.”¹²²The regulations went beyond what the Guiding Opinions mandate by imposing restrictions not just on mass cases but on the broadly defined “sensitive” cases.

Shenzhen municipality

In July 2006 the Shenzhen Municipal Judicial Bureau issued its “Provisional Regulations on Lawyers in Handling Sensitive and Mass Cases.”¹²³ The regulations impose similar requirements as the Guiding Opinions on lawyers handling cases “that can easily lead to social contradictions … or influence social stability,” such as “violations of people’s interests by government departments.”¹²⁴ Mass cases are defined as cases that can “influence the relation between the party and the masses … such as disputes about land compensation, forced demolitions and evictions, enterprise restructuring, workers’ layoffs, illegal fundraising, elections at the grassroots level, and unpaid wages.”¹²⁵ In addition to reporting within three days of accepting sensitive or mass cases, lawyers must not “use the media to bring pressure to bear on government bureaus or judicial organs.”¹²⁶

Lawyers have reported similar regulations for Hangzhou municipality and Guangdong province, although it is unknown whether they were issued before or after the ACLA regulations.¹²⁷ They similarly instruct lawyers to report to the judicial authorities when they take mass or “sensitive” cases.

* * *

In Henan province and Shenyang municipality the enactment of new regulations was accompanied by the organization of meetings with the judicial bureaus to convey the new requirements to lawyers. Such meetings, while a typical means of disseminating information about new laws, underscore the emphasis the government is placing on the issue.  In Henan province, on April 19, a “Work conference on strengthening the establishment of lawyers ranks,” presided over by the party secretary and the head of the Judicial Bureau, was held in the provincial capital Zhengzhou to “analyze and study the current state of affairs and problems that lawyers [in Henan] face, and strengthen their sense of professional responsibility.”¹²⁸ In Shenyang, a similar conference was held on April 14. The Shenyang Judicial Bureau reportedly “established the system for reporting important, difficult and sensitive cases… in order to realize the unification of legal, social and political outcomes.”¹²⁹

The promulgation of the national ACLA Guiding Opinions and the adoption of similar or broader regulations at the local level reflect a deliberate attempt by the authorities to respond to the increase in public protests by restricting access to legal and media channels through which protesters attempt to assert their rights. While it remains to be seen whether, as many Chinese legal experts predict, the government’s strategy will ultimately lead to an escalation of protests and violence, these new regulations reflect the fragility of the CPC’s commitment to the rule of law when Chinese citizens band together to air their grievances. The development of such limitations has also led to fears that local governments would be able to further extend and legitimize these restrictions to the courts, instructing them not to accept certain cases.