File #2463: "2018_Book_ChinaSRuleOfLawIndex2017.pdf"
Testo
1|Preface|6
2|Evaluating the Level of Rule of Law: Methods and Approaches|6
1|Contents|11
1|About the Editors|12
1|1 Rule of Law in China 2016–2017: Review and Outlook|13
2|Science and Democracy—Giving Play to the Leading Role of Legislation|13
3|Guiding Development with Legislation to Promote Social and Economic Construction|14
3|Enhancing Legislation in Key Areas to Safeguard National Security|14
3|Amending Laws and Regulations to Ensure that Reforms Are Carried Out According to Law|15
3|Strengthening Legislative Interpretation to Uphold the Authority of the Constitution and Laws|16
3|Ratifying International Treaties to Actively Integrate into the International Community|16
2|Reform and Delegation of Powers—Promoting the Construction of a Law-Based Government|17
3|Deepening Reforms of the Administrative System to Accelerate the Process of Streamlining Administration and Delegating Powers|17
3|Developing the Internet Plus Government Services Model to Further Promote the Disclosure of Government Affairs|19
3|Improving Construction of a Law-Based Government by Strictly Regulating Administrative Law Enforcement|20
2|Inheritance and Innovation—Promoting Judicial Reform in an Orderly Way|22
3|Strengthening Institutional Construction and Deepening Reform of the Judicial System|22
3|Creating Disclosure Platforms to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Judicial Openness|23
3|Elevating the Informatization Level in an All-Out Effort to Build Smart Courts|24
3|Improving Enforcement, Investigation and Control to Basically Overcome Difficulties in Enforcement|26
3|Reforming the Criminal Law System to Establish a Tightened Network of Criminal Laws|27
2|Accountability and Assessment—Better Building a Clean Government Under Rule of Law|29
3|Promoting the Work of Building a Law-Based Clean Government and Continuing to Improve the Accountability Mechanism|29
3|Enhancing International Anti-Corruption Cooperation and Achieving Remarkable Results in Anti-Corruption Efforts|30
2|Improvement and Regulation—Improving Civil, Commercial and Economic Laws Under the Rule of Law|31
3|Orderly Advancing Compilation of the Civil Code and Improving the Civil Law System|31
3|Improving Existing Commercial Law System in Response to the Demand of Social Development|33
3|Strengthening Top-Down Design of Intellectual Property and Promoting Implementation of National Strategy|34
3|Regulating the Internet Market According to Law and Solving Predicament in Industrial Development|35
3|All-Round Implementation of the Reform of Replacing Business Tax with Value-Added Tax (VAT) and Stepping up the Reform of Fiscal and Tax Systems|36
3|Further Deepening Reform of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Establishing a Modern Enterprise System|37
2|Guarantee and Maintenance—Laying the Foundation for the Rule of Law in Social Affairs|37
3|Social Security Was Steadily Advanced, but the Legal System Needs to Be Enhanced|37
3|The Rule of Law in Charity Was Initially Built, but the Implementing Regulations Need Improvement|39
3|Labor Disputes Should not Be Overlooked, and the Rule of Law in Labor Was Insufficient|40
3|The Social Credit System Was Built to Maintain Social Harmony and Stability|40
3|The Central Government Inspected Environmental Protection Issues, and Environmental Protection Law Enforcement is an Arduous Task|41
2|The Outlook for the Development of Rule of Law in 2017|42
3|Fruits of Reform and Development Will Be Safeguarded, Legislation in Key Areas Will Get Promoted and Existing Laws and Regulations Will Be Rigorously Enforced|43
3|Government Affairs Service Platforms Will Be Put in Place, Law Enforcement System Reforms Will Be Carried Out and Isolated Island of Government Information Will Be Broken|43
3|Judicial Reforms Will Be Launched on All Fronts, the Informatization Construction Will Be Advanced Steadily, and the Task of Addressing Difficulties in Law Enforcement is Still Heavy|44
3|The Social Security System Will Be Improved, the Coverage of Social Security Will Be Expanded on a Continuous Basis and the Fruits of Reform Will Be Widely Shared|46
3|Comprehensive Strengthening of Party Discipline Will Be Implemented, the Critical Minority Will Be the Focus of Attention, and Efforts Will Be Made to Ensure that the Party Abides by the Rule of Law|46
1|2 Chinese Government Transparency Index Report (2015)|49
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|50
2|Overview of the Work of Government Information Disclosure in 2015|53
2|Overview of Evaluation Results|55
2|Information Disclosure Sections on Official Government Websites|55
2|Normative Documents|67
2|Financial Information|68
2|Information About Environmental Protection|70
2|Information About Administrative Approval|73
2|Disclosure upon Application|75
2|Annual Report on the Disclosure of Government Information|79
2|Advice for Improvement|80
1|3 Chinese Government Transparency Index Report (2016)|83
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|84
2|Overview of Evaluation Results|87
2|Platforms for Government Information Disclosure|106
3|Highlights on evaluation results|106
4|The special section for government information disclosure was generally developed in a standardized way|106
4|Most organizations being evaluated developed the barrier-free browsing function on their websites|107
3|Issues identified during evaluation|107
4|Several organizations being evaluated developed the special section for information disclosure in a less satisfactory manner|107
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information under the special section|108
4|The searching function provided by several organizations being evaluated was less developed|109
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to provide the barrier-free browsing function on their websites|109
2|Normative Documents|109
3|Highlights on evaluation results|110
4|Some organizations being evaluated published the collected opinions on normative documents in a standardized manner|110
4|Several organizations being evaluated paid great attention to publishing the feedbacks|110
4|Some organizations being evaluated provided approaches enabling the public to search for collected opinions and feedbacks easily|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated classified the normative documents in various ways|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated marked the validity of normative documents|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated performed better in disclosing the information about the review of normative documents|112
3|Issues identified during evaluation|112
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to properly publish the collected opinions on normative documents and feedbacks on collected opinions|112
4|A few organizations being evaluated need to develop the section for publishing the normative documents in a more standardized manner|113
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve their marking of the validity of normative documents|114
4|Most organizations being evaluated performed poorly in publishing the information about the review of normative documents|114
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about the record of normative documents|114
2|Information About Administrative Approval|114
3|Highlights on evaluation results|115
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the list of items subject to administrative approval|115
4|Most organizations being evaluated made publicly available the guidelines on administrative approval|115
4|Some organizations being evaluated developed the section for publishing the results of administrative approval|115
3|Issues identified during evaluation|116
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the list of items subject to administrative approval|116
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to maintain dynamic adjustment of the list of items subject to administrative approval|116
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of the guidelines on administrative approval|116
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to define the content of guidelines accurately|117
4|Some organizations being evaluated made publicly available the results of administrative approval but the disclosure was less than satisfactory|118
2|Information About Administrative Punishment|118
3|Highlights on evaluation results|118
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the list of items subject to administrative punishment|118
4|The organizations being evaluated performed better in disclosing the administrative punishment results relating to environmental protection|119
3|Issues identified during evaluation|119
4|Several organizations being evaluated disclosed the list of items subject to administrative punishment but the disclosure was less than satisfactory|119
4|Organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of administrative punishment results|119
4|Organizations being evaluated made publicly available the administrative punishment results on multiple platforms|120
2|Information About Environmental Protection|120
3|Highlights on evaluation results|121
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the information about the water quality monitoring of drinking water from supply sources and that of outlet water from water supply plants in a standardized manner|121
4|Organizations being evaluated generally performed well in disclosing the information about fee collection for pollution discharge|122
4|Organizations being evaluated performed well in disclosing the information about environmental impact assessment of construction projects|122
3|Issues identified during evaluation|122
4|A few organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information about the water quality monitoring of drinking water from centralized supply sources|122
4|Several organizations being evaluated did not disclose the information about fee collection for pollution discharge|122
4|Organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about environmental impact assessment of construction objects|123
2|Disclosure of Information About the Redevelopment of Shanty Areas|123
3|Highlights on evaluation results|124
4|Most projects under evaluation were fully aware of the necessity to disclose the information about shanty areas redevelopment|124
4|Some organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about shanty areas redevelopment in the districts and counties|124
4|Several organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about shanty areas redevelopment with greater details|124
3|Issues identified during evaluation|125
4|Organizations being evaluated published the information about land use for shanty areas redevelopment in different formats|125
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to provide detailed information about the shanty areas redevelopment projects|125
4|Several organizations being evaluated published the incorrect information|125
2|Information About Public Assistance|126
3|Highlights on evaluation results|126
4|Some organizations being evaluated published the complete information in the guidelines on the application for public assistance|126
4|Several organizations being evaluated developed the uniform online platform for the disclosure of government information, making it more easily accessible for the public|126
3|Issues identified during evaluation|127
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information about standards for public assistance|127
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about the guidelines on the application for public assistance|127
2|Information About Education|128
3|Highlights on evaluation results|128
4|More than half of the organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about the division of compulsory education enrollment areas|128
4|A few organizations being evaluated published the information about the enrollment of children living with migrated parents|128
3|Issues identified during evaluation|129
4|Still about half of the organizations being evaluated failed to disclose the information about the division of compulsory education enrollment areas|129
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to disclose properly the information about the enrollment of children living with migrated parents|129
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to disclose the information about education in a standardized manner|129
2|Annual Report on Government Information Disclosure|130
3|Highlights on evaluation results|130
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the annual report on government information disclosure|130
4|Organizations being evaluated provided complete information in their annual report on government information disclosure|130
3|Issues identified during evaluation|131
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to publish all annual reports as requested|131
4|Several organizations being evaluated misplaced the annual report, making it difficult to find|131
4|Several organizations being evaluated did not provide the title of the annual report in a standardized manner|132
4|Some organizations being evaluated need to improve the novelty of their annual reports|132
4|Most organizations being evaluated did not provide detailed information about disclosure upon application|132
4|Several organizations being evaluated provided inaccurate data in the annual report|133
2|Disclosure upon Application|133
3|Highlights on evaluation results|134
4|Channels for submitting application by mail were generally accessible|134
4|Some administrative agencies replied in accordance with standardized procedures, formats and contents|134
3|Issues identified during evaluation|135
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to provide a reply or reply in a timely manner|135
4|Reply procedures were contradictory and replies were provided in a less standardized manner|135
4|Replies were provided in all kinds of format|136
4|Some content of the replies was either incorrect or missing|136
2|Advice for Improvement|137
1|4 China Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|139
2|Organizations Being Evaluated and Indicator System|140
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|140
3|Indicator System|140
4|Three Principles for the Development of Indicator System|140
4|Optimization of Indicator System for 2015|141
4|Evaluation Method|143
2|Overall Evaluation Results|144
3|Platform Construction Is Undergoing Rapid Development|144
3|Some Courts Have Maintained Early-Development Advantages in the Promotion of Judicial Openness|154
3|Several Latecomer Courts in the Promotion of Judicial Openness Have Risen to Get Ahead of Others|154
3|The Phenomenon that Dark Spots Under the Light Are Often Neglected No Longer Exists in the SPC System|155
3|The China Judicial Transparency Index for 2015 Presents a Four-Bracket Map Layout|155
2|Evaluation Highlights|156
3|Information About Judicial Administration Is Becoming Increasingly Transparent|156
2|Courts Have Made Important Innovations on the Disclosure of Court Trials and Enforcement Information|158
3|Courts Have Made a Breakthrough in the Disclosure of the Statistics About Judgment Documents that Ought not to Be Published Online|159
3|Some Courts Are Paying Higher Attention to the Disclosure of Judicial Statistics|160
3|Judicial Reform Has Significantly Increased Transparency in Certain Areas|161
3|Certain Courts Are Making an Attempt to Improve the Judicial Disclosure Mechanism|162
2|Issues Identified During Evaluation|163
3|The Problem of Decentralized and Redundant Platform Construction Becomes Increasingly Serious|163
3|Information Made Publicly Available Is Less Than Accurate|166
3|Payment for the Disclosure of Gazettes and White Papers Is Required|166
3|Disclosure of Judicial Statistics Remains at a Preliminary Stage|168
3|Transparency in Judicial Reform Requires Further Improvement|170
2|Visions for the Future: Judicial Openness Shall Be Promoted by Adopting the Top-Down Design with a Public-Oriented Mindset|170
3|Constructing the Intensified Disclosure Platforms|171
3|Establishing the Mechanisms for Disclosure upon Application|171
3|Abandoning the Idea of Seeking Profit from the Disclosure of Public Information|172
3|Introducing the Relief Mechanism for Judicial Openness|172
3|Building a Judicial Big Data Shared by All the People|172
1|5 China Judicial Transparency Index Report (2016)|174
2|Indicator System for the Evaluation of China Judicial Transparency Index|175
2|Ranking of Courts Based on China Judicial Transparency Index|177
2|Promotion of Judicial Openness Reveals a New Trend in a New Era of v3.0|184
3|Intensified Judicial Disclosure Marks the Growth of Judicial Openness Towards Maturity|184
4|Integration and Interconnection of Platforms|185
4|Optimization of Website Homepage by Categorizing Information|186
4|Enhanced Correlation Between Contents|186
3|Judgment Documents Become the Judicial Information Shared by All the People|186
4|Regulations Are Being Continuously Improved|187
4|Functions of Disclosure Platforms Are Being Increasingly Strengthened|187
3|Disclosure of Court Trials Allows More People to Be a Witness for Judicial Justice|188
4|Safeguard the Citizen Right to Attend a Hearing as an Observer to Ensure that Justice Is Done on Site|189
4|Take Full Advantage of Information-Based Platforms to Ensure that Justice Is Done Visibly|190
3|Open Enforcement Is Being Promoted with the Orientation on Basically Solving the Difficulty in Enforcement|190
4|Carry Out the Top-Down Design for Online Judicial Auction|191
4|Disclose the Information About Cases Temporarily Concluded in the Current Enforcement Process to Reversely Force to the Courts to Conclude a Case in a More Standardized Manner|191
4|Disclose the Punishment Measures on Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement to Create an Atmosphere of Honesty|192
3|Transparency in Judicial Reform Is Improving|193
4|The Sections for the Disclosure of Information About Judicial Reform Are Set up|193
4|The Case Registration System Is Being Properly Implemented|194
3|The Disclosure of Judicial Statistics Is Improving in the Context of the Big Data|194
4|Courts Generally Disclose the Financial Information|194
4|Annual Work Reports of the Courts Are Being Disclosed at a Higher Percentage|195
4|Disclosure of Special Reports or White Papers Shows Tangible Improvement|195
2|Room for Improvement of “Under Sunshine” Courts in the Future|196
3|Rely on the In-Depth Application of Informatization Among the Courts to Promote the Judicial Openness in Depth and Width|196
3|Improve the Implementation of the Provisions on Reversed Disclosure of Judgment Documents|197
3|Improve the Platform for the Disclosure of Enforcement Information|198
4|Equip the Platform with Lookup and Statistical Functions to Improve the User-Friendliness of the Publicity Pages|198
4|Strengthen the Disclosure of the Information About Dishonest Public Servants and Institutions|198
3|Enhance Data Docking and Jointly Establish the Social Credit System|199
1|6 China Maritime Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|201
2|Indicator System and Evaluation Method|202
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|202
3|Indicator System|202
3|Evaluation Method|202
3|Evaluation Results|203
2|Evaluation Results by Indicator|206
3|Disclosure of Judicial Affairs|206
3|Disclosure of Case Filing and Court Trial|207
3|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|207
3|Disclosure of Enforcement Information|208
2|Advice for Improvement and Priorities in the Next Evaluation|208
1|7 China Maritime Judicial Transparency Index Report (2016)|210
2|Summary of Maritime Judicial Openness in 2016|211
3|Disclosure was made in Diverse Ways and Supported by Improved Policies|211
3|Archangelos Gabriel Case Became a Good Reference|211
3|China is Playing a More Influential Role in International Maritime Justice|211
2|Indicator System and Evaluation Method|212
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|212
3|Indicator System|212
3|Method and Principles of Evaluation|212
2|Evaluation Results|213
2|Evaluation Results by Indicator|216
3|Disclosure of Judicial Affairs|216
3|Disclosure of Case Filing and Court Trial|217
3|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|217
3|Disclosure of Enforcement Information|218
2|Advice and Priorities in the Next Evaluation|218
1|8 Beijing Court Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|221
2|Objectives, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|222
3|Evaluation Objectives|222
3|Indicator System|222
4|Disclosure of Trial Affairs and Trial Information|222
4|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|223
4|Accurate Import of Case Flow Nodal Information (30%)|224
3|Duration, Objects and Methods of Evaluation|224
4|Website Observation|224
4|Archive Reference|224
4|Comparison with Case Information Management System|225
2|Evaluation Results|225
2|Highlights|227
3|Centralized Disclosure of Judicial Information|227
3|More Standard Disclosure|228
3|More Standard Approval of Judgment Documents not to Be Made Publicly Available Online|228
2|Challenges|228
3|Trial Affairs and Trial Information Should Be Disclosed in a More Standardized Manner|229
4|Website Development Should Be Improved|229
4|Websites Were not Timely Updated|229
4|Not All Mandatory Information Were Made Public|230
3|The Approval of Judgment Documents not to Be Made Publicly Available Online Should Be Made in a More Compliant Way|230
4|Disagreement Between Approval Information|230
4|Online Non-disclosure Approval Needed to Be Regulated|231
4|The Scope of Online Non-disclosure Approval Was Expanded|231
3|Case Flow Nodal Information Should Be Imported More Accurately|232
4|Disagreement Between Case Management System and Case Archives|232
4|Incomplete Case Information|233
4|Inaccurate Case Information|233
2|Advice for Improvement|233
3|Perfecting the Centralized Judicial Disclosure Platform|233
3|Actively Releasing and Timely Updating Judicial Information|234
3|Reinforcing the Auxiliary Staff|234
3|Further Regulating Online Non-disclosure Approval|234
3|Improving the Case Information Management System|235
1|9 Zhejiang Court Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|236
2|Indicator System|237
2|Evaluation Results|238
3|Overall Results|238
2|Highlights|249
3|Challenges|250
4|Unbalanced Development of Judicial Openness|250
4|Unbalanced Development of Judicial Openness in Various Regions|251
3|Difficulties Facing Judicial Transparency|252
2|Advice for Improvement|252
3|Raise the Awareness About Judicial Transparency|253
3|Rely on Informatization to Promote Judicial Transparency|253
3|Improve Policies and Mechanisms to Make Steady Progress|254
3|Synchronize Judicial Transparency and Judicial Ability|254
1|10 China Procuratorial Transparency Index Report (2015)|256
2|Indicators and Objects of Evaluation|256
2|Overall Evaluation Results|260
3|Progress Made in Procuratorial Information Disclosure in 2015|263
4|Rules on Disclosure Continues to Improve|263
4|Great Leap-Forward in Case Information Disclosure Website|264
4|Focus Was Put on News Release|264
4|Micro Platforms Gained Rapid Development|264
4|More and More Procuratorates Made Public Legal Documents|265
4|Financial Information and Information on Three Types of Public Expenditure Were Better Disclosed|265
3|Challenges in Current Work of Procuratorial Information Disclosure|265
4|Some Procuratorates Had no Portal Website|265
4|Some Websites Were Found of Poor Maintenance|266
4|Some Websites Had Non-standard Sections|266
4|Non-standard Contents Issued on the Websites and Unscientific Information Categorization|266
4|Unbalanced Development of the Disclosure of Information About Procuratorial Affairs|267
4|Information Disclosure Was to Some Extent not Satisfactory|267
2|Evaluation Results in Indicators|267
3|Platform Construction|267
3|Procuratorial Affairs|268
3|Procuratorial Teams|270
3|Procuratorial Cases|272
2|Advice for Improvement|273
1|11 China Procuratorial Transparency Index Report (2016)|275
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|276
2|Overall Evaluation Results|276
2|Highlights|279
2|Challenges|285
2|Advice and Prospects|288
2|Evaluating the Level of Rule of Law: Methods and Approaches|6
1|Contents|11
1|About the Editors|12
1|1 Rule of Law in China 2016–2017: Review and Outlook|13
2|Science and Democracy—Giving Play to the Leading Role of Legislation|13
3|Guiding Development with Legislation to Promote Social and Economic Construction|14
3|Enhancing Legislation in Key Areas to Safeguard National Security|14
3|Amending Laws and Regulations to Ensure that Reforms Are Carried Out According to Law|15
3|Strengthening Legislative Interpretation to Uphold the Authority of the Constitution and Laws|16
3|Ratifying International Treaties to Actively Integrate into the International Community|16
2|Reform and Delegation of Powers—Promoting the Construction of a Law-Based Government|17
3|Deepening Reforms of the Administrative System to Accelerate the Process of Streamlining Administration and Delegating Powers|17
3|Developing the Internet Plus Government Services Model to Further Promote the Disclosure of Government Affairs|19
3|Improving Construction of a Law-Based Government by Strictly Regulating Administrative Law Enforcement|20
2|Inheritance and Innovation—Promoting Judicial Reform in an Orderly Way|22
3|Strengthening Institutional Construction and Deepening Reform of the Judicial System|22
3|Creating Disclosure Platforms to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Judicial Openness|23
3|Elevating the Informatization Level in an All-Out Effort to Build Smart Courts|24
3|Improving Enforcement, Investigation and Control to Basically Overcome Difficulties in Enforcement|26
3|Reforming the Criminal Law System to Establish a Tightened Network of Criminal Laws|27
2|Accountability and Assessment—Better Building a Clean Government Under Rule of Law|29
3|Promoting the Work of Building a Law-Based Clean Government and Continuing to Improve the Accountability Mechanism|29
3|Enhancing International Anti-Corruption Cooperation and Achieving Remarkable Results in Anti-Corruption Efforts|30
2|Improvement and Regulation—Improving Civil, Commercial and Economic Laws Under the Rule of Law|31
3|Orderly Advancing Compilation of the Civil Code and Improving the Civil Law System|31
3|Improving Existing Commercial Law System in Response to the Demand of Social Development|33
3|Strengthening Top-Down Design of Intellectual Property and Promoting Implementation of National Strategy|34
3|Regulating the Internet Market According to Law and Solving Predicament in Industrial Development|35
3|All-Round Implementation of the Reform of Replacing Business Tax with Value-Added Tax (VAT) and Stepping up the Reform of Fiscal and Tax Systems|36
3|Further Deepening Reform of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Establishing a Modern Enterprise System|37
2|Guarantee and Maintenance—Laying the Foundation for the Rule of Law in Social Affairs|37
3|Social Security Was Steadily Advanced, but the Legal System Needs to Be Enhanced|37
3|The Rule of Law in Charity Was Initially Built, but the Implementing Regulations Need Improvement|39
3|Labor Disputes Should not Be Overlooked, and the Rule of Law in Labor Was Insufficient|40
3|The Social Credit System Was Built to Maintain Social Harmony and Stability|40
3|The Central Government Inspected Environmental Protection Issues, and Environmental Protection Law Enforcement is an Arduous Task|41
2|The Outlook for the Development of Rule of Law in 2017|42
3|Fruits of Reform and Development Will Be Safeguarded, Legislation in Key Areas Will Get Promoted and Existing Laws and Regulations Will Be Rigorously Enforced|43
3|Government Affairs Service Platforms Will Be Put in Place, Law Enforcement System Reforms Will Be Carried Out and Isolated Island of Government Information Will Be Broken|43
3|Judicial Reforms Will Be Launched on All Fronts, the Informatization Construction Will Be Advanced Steadily, and the Task of Addressing Difficulties in Law Enforcement is Still Heavy|44
3|The Social Security System Will Be Improved, the Coverage of Social Security Will Be Expanded on a Continuous Basis and the Fruits of Reform Will Be Widely Shared|46
3|Comprehensive Strengthening of Party Discipline Will Be Implemented, the Critical Minority Will Be the Focus of Attention, and Efforts Will Be Made to Ensure that the Party Abides by the Rule of Law|46
1|2 Chinese Government Transparency Index Report (2015)|49
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|50
2|Overview of the Work of Government Information Disclosure in 2015|53
2|Overview of Evaluation Results|55
2|Information Disclosure Sections on Official Government Websites|55
2|Normative Documents|67
2|Financial Information|68
2|Information About Environmental Protection|70
2|Information About Administrative Approval|73
2|Disclosure upon Application|75
2|Annual Report on the Disclosure of Government Information|79
2|Advice for Improvement|80
1|3 Chinese Government Transparency Index Report (2016)|83
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|84
2|Overview of Evaluation Results|87
2|Platforms for Government Information Disclosure|106
3|Highlights on evaluation results|106
4|The special section for government information disclosure was generally developed in a standardized way|106
4|Most organizations being evaluated developed the barrier-free browsing function on their websites|107
3|Issues identified during evaluation|107
4|Several organizations being evaluated developed the special section for information disclosure in a less satisfactory manner|107
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information under the special section|108
4|The searching function provided by several organizations being evaluated was less developed|109
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to provide the barrier-free browsing function on their websites|109
2|Normative Documents|109
3|Highlights on evaluation results|110
4|Some organizations being evaluated published the collected opinions on normative documents in a standardized manner|110
4|Several organizations being evaluated paid great attention to publishing the feedbacks|110
4|Some organizations being evaluated provided approaches enabling the public to search for collected opinions and feedbacks easily|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated classified the normative documents in various ways|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated marked the validity of normative documents|111
4|Some organizations being evaluated performed better in disclosing the information about the review of normative documents|112
3|Issues identified during evaluation|112
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to properly publish the collected opinions on normative documents and feedbacks on collected opinions|112
4|A few organizations being evaluated need to develop the section for publishing the normative documents in a more standardized manner|113
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve their marking of the validity of normative documents|114
4|Most organizations being evaluated performed poorly in publishing the information about the review of normative documents|114
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about the record of normative documents|114
2|Information About Administrative Approval|114
3|Highlights on evaluation results|115
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the list of items subject to administrative approval|115
4|Most organizations being evaluated made publicly available the guidelines on administrative approval|115
4|Some organizations being evaluated developed the section for publishing the results of administrative approval|115
3|Issues identified during evaluation|116
4|Several organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the list of items subject to administrative approval|116
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to maintain dynamic adjustment of the list of items subject to administrative approval|116
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of the guidelines on administrative approval|116
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to define the content of guidelines accurately|117
4|Some organizations being evaluated made publicly available the results of administrative approval but the disclosure was less than satisfactory|118
2|Information About Administrative Punishment|118
3|Highlights on evaluation results|118
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the list of items subject to administrative punishment|118
4|The organizations being evaluated performed better in disclosing the administrative punishment results relating to environmental protection|119
3|Issues identified during evaluation|119
4|Several organizations being evaluated disclosed the list of items subject to administrative punishment but the disclosure was less than satisfactory|119
4|Organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of administrative punishment results|119
4|Organizations being evaluated made publicly available the administrative punishment results on multiple platforms|120
2|Information About Environmental Protection|120
3|Highlights on evaluation results|121
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the information about the water quality monitoring of drinking water from supply sources and that of outlet water from water supply plants in a standardized manner|121
4|Organizations being evaluated generally performed well in disclosing the information about fee collection for pollution discharge|122
4|Organizations being evaluated performed well in disclosing the information about environmental impact assessment of construction projects|122
3|Issues identified during evaluation|122
4|A few organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information about the water quality monitoring of drinking water from centralized supply sources|122
4|Several organizations being evaluated did not disclose the information about fee collection for pollution discharge|122
4|Organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about environmental impact assessment of construction objects|123
2|Disclosure of Information About the Redevelopment of Shanty Areas|123
3|Highlights on evaluation results|124
4|Most projects under evaluation were fully aware of the necessity to disclose the information about shanty areas redevelopment|124
4|Some organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about shanty areas redevelopment in the districts and counties|124
4|Several organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about shanty areas redevelopment with greater details|124
3|Issues identified during evaluation|125
4|Organizations being evaluated published the information about land use for shanty areas redevelopment in different formats|125
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to provide detailed information about the shanty areas redevelopment projects|125
4|Several organizations being evaluated published the incorrect information|125
2|Information About Public Assistance|126
3|Highlights on evaluation results|126
4|Some organizations being evaluated published the complete information in the guidelines on the application for public assistance|126
4|Several organizations being evaluated developed the uniform online platform for the disclosure of government information, making it more easily accessible for the public|126
3|Issues identified during evaluation|127
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to properly disclose the information about standards for public assistance|127
4|Most organizations being evaluated need to improve the disclosure of information about the guidelines on the application for public assistance|127
2|Information About Education|128
3|Highlights on evaluation results|128
4|More than half of the organizations being evaluated made publicly available the information about the division of compulsory education enrollment areas|128
4|A few organizations being evaluated published the information about the enrollment of children living with migrated parents|128
3|Issues identified during evaluation|129
4|Still about half of the organizations being evaluated failed to disclose the information about the division of compulsory education enrollment areas|129
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to disclose properly the information about the enrollment of children living with migrated parents|129
4|Most organizations being evaluated failed to disclose the information about education in a standardized manner|129
2|Annual Report on Government Information Disclosure|130
3|Highlights on evaluation results|130
4|Organizations being evaluated generally made publicly available the annual report on government information disclosure|130
4|Organizations being evaluated provided complete information in their annual report on government information disclosure|130
3|Issues identified during evaluation|131
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to publish all annual reports as requested|131
4|Several organizations being evaluated misplaced the annual report, making it difficult to find|131
4|Several organizations being evaluated did not provide the title of the annual report in a standardized manner|132
4|Some organizations being evaluated need to improve the novelty of their annual reports|132
4|Most organizations being evaluated did not provide detailed information about disclosure upon application|132
4|Several organizations being evaluated provided inaccurate data in the annual report|133
2|Disclosure upon Application|133
3|Highlights on evaluation results|134
4|Channels for submitting application by mail were generally accessible|134
4|Some administrative agencies replied in accordance with standardized procedures, formats and contents|134
3|Issues identified during evaluation|135
4|Some organizations being evaluated failed to provide a reply or reply in a timely manner|135
4|Reply procedures were contradictory and replies were provided in a less standardized manner|135
4|Replies were provided in all kinds of format|136
4|Some content of the replies was either incorrect or missing|136
2|Advice for Improvement|137
1|4 China Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|139
2|Organizations Being Evaluated and Indicator System|140
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|140
3|Indicator System|140
4|Three Principles for the Development of Indicator System|140
4|Optimization of Indicator System for 2015|141
4|Evaluation Method|143
2|Overall Evaluation Results|144
3|Platform Construction Is Undergoing Rapid Development|144
3|Some Courts Have Maintained Early-Development Advantages in the Promotion of Judicial Openness|154
3|Several Latecomer Courts in the Promotion of Judicial Openness Have Risen to Get Ahead of Others|154
3|The Phenomenon that Dark Spots Under the Light Are Often Neglected No Longer Exists in the SPC System|155
3|The China Judicial Transparency Index for 2015 Presents a Four-Bracket Map Layout|155
2|Evaluation Highlights|156
3|Information About Judicial Administration Is Becoming Increasingly Transparent|156
2|Courts Have Made Important Innovations on the Disclosure of Court Trials and Enforcement Information|158
3|Courts Have Made a Breakthrough in the Disclosure of the Statistics About Judgment Documents that Ought not to Be Published Online|159
3|Some Courts Are Paying Higher Attention to the Disclosure of Judicial Statistics|160
3|Judicial Reform Has Significantly Increased Transparency in Certain Areas|161
3|Certain Courts Are Making an Attempt to Improve the Judicial Disclosure Mechanism|162
2|Issues Identified During Evaluation|163
3|The Problem of Decentralized and Redundant Platform Construction Becomes Increasingly Serious|163
3|Information Made Publicly Available Is Less Than Accurate|166
3|Payment for the Disclosure of Gazettes and White Papers Is Required|166
3|Disclosure of Judicial Statistics Remains at a Preliminary Stage|168
3|Transparency in Judicial Reform Requires Further Improvement|170
2|Visions for the Future: Judicial Openness Shall Be Promoted by Adopting the Top-Down Design with a Public-Oriented Mindset|170
3|Constructing the Intensified Disclosure Platforms|171
3|Establishing the Mechanisms for Disclosure upon Application|171
3|Abandoning the Idea of Seeking Profit from the Disclosure of Public Information|172
3|Introducing the Relief Mechanism for Judicial Openness|172
3|Building a Judicial Big Data Shared by All the People|172
1|5 China Judicial Transparency Index Report (2016)|174
2|Indicator System for the Evaluation of China Judicial Transparency Index|175
2|Ranking of Courts Based on China Judicial Transparency Index|177
2|Promotion of Judicial Openness Reveals a New Trend in a New Era of v3.0|184
3|Intensified Judicial Disclosure Marks the Growth of Judicial Openness Towards Maturity|184
4|Integration and Interconnection of Platforms|185
4|Optimization of Website Homepage by Categorizing Information|186
4|Enhanced Correlation Between Contents|186
3|Judgment Documents Become the Judicial Information Shared by All the People|186
4|Regulations Are Being Continuously Improved|187
4|Functions of Disclosure Platforms Are Being Increasingly Strengthened|187
3|Disclosure of Court Trials Allows More People to Be a Witness for Judicial Justice|188
4|Safeguard the Citizen Right to Attend a Hearing as an Observer to Ensure that Justice Is Done on Site|189
4|Take Full Advantage of Information-Based Platforms to Ensure that Justice Is Done Visibly|190
3|Open Enforcement Is Being Promoted with the Orientation on Basically Solving the Difficulty in Enforcement|190
4|Carry Out the Top-Down Design for Online Judicial Auction|191
4|Disclose the Information About Cases Temporarily Concluded in the Current Enforcement Process to Reversely Force to the Courts to Conclude a Case in a More Standardized Manner|191
4|Disclose the Punishment Measures on Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement to Create an Atmosphere of Honesty|192
3|Transparency in Judicial Reform Is Improving|193
4|The Sections for the Disclosure of Information About Judicial Reform Are Set up|193
4|The Case Registration System Is Being Properly Implemented|194
3|The Disclosure of Judicial Statistics Is Improving in the Context of the Big Data|194
4|Courts Generally Disclose the Financial Information|194
4|Annual Work Reports of the Courts Are Being Disclosed at a Higher Percentage|195
4|Disclosure of Special Reports or White Papers Shows Tangible Improvement|195
2|Room for Improvement of “Under Sunshine” Courts in the Future|196
3|Rely on the In-Depth Application of Informatization Among the Courts to Promote the Judicial Openness in Depth and Width|196
3|Improve the Implementation of the Provisions on Reversed Disclosure of Judgment Documents|197
3|Improve the Platform for the Disclosure of Enforcement Information|198
4|Equip the Platform with Lookup and Statistical Functions to Improve the User-Friendliness of the Publicity Pages|198
4|Strengthen the Disclosure of the Information About Dishonest Public Servants and Institutions|198
3|Enhance Data Docking and Jointly Establish the Social Credit System|199
1|6 China Maritime Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|201
2|Indicator System and Evaluation Method|202
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|202
3|Indicator System|202
3|Evaluation Method|202
3|Evaluation Results|203
2|Evaluation Results by Indicator|206
3|Disclosure of Judicial Affairs|206
3|Disclosure of Case Filing and Court Trial|207
3|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|207
3|Disclosure of Enforcement Information|208
2|Advice for Improvement and Priorities in the Next Evaluation|208
1|7 China Maritime Judicial Transparency Index Report (2016)|210
2|Summary of Maritime Judicial Openness in 2016|211
3|Disclosure was made in Diverse Ways and Supported by Improved Policies|211
3|Archangelos Gabriel Case Became a Good Reference|211
3|China is Playing a More Influential Role in International Maritime Justice|211
2|Indicator System and Evaluation Method|212
3|Organizations Being Evaluated|212
3|Indicator System|212
3|Method and Principles of Evaluation|212
2|Evaluation Results|213
2|Evaluation Results by Indicator|216
3|Disclosure of Judicial Affairs|216
3|Disclosure of Case Filing and Court Trial|217
3|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|217
3|Disclosure of Enforcement Information|218
2|Advice and Priorities in the Next Evaluation|218
1|8 Beijing Court Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|221
2|Objectives, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|222
3|Evaluation Objectives|222
3|Indicator System|222
4|Disclosure of Trial Affairs and Trial Information|222
4|Disclosure of Judgment Documents|223
4|Accurate Import of Case Flow Nodal Information (30%)|224
3|Duration, Objects and Methods of Evaluation|224
4|Website Observation|224
4|Archive Reference|224
4|Comparison with Case Information Management System|225
2|Evaluation Results|225
2|Highlights|227
3|Centralized Disclosure of Judicial Information|227
3|More Standard Disclosure|228
3|More Standard Approval of Judgment Documents not to Be Made Publicly Available Online|228
2|Challenges|228
3|Trial Affairs and Trial Information Should Be Disclosed in a More Standardized Manner|229
4|Website Development Should Be Improved|229
4|Websites Were not Timely Updated|229
4|Not All Mandatory Information Were Made Public|230
3|The Approval of Judgment Documents not to Be Made Publicly Available Online Should Be Made in a More Compliant Way|230
4|Disagreement Between Approval Information|230
4|Online Non-disclosure Approval Needed to Be Regulated|231
4|The Scope of Online Non-disclosure Approval Was Expanded|231
3|Case Flow Nodal Information Should Be Imported More Accurately|232
4|Disagreement Between Case Management System and Case Archives|232
4|Incomplete Case Information|233
4|Inaccurate Case Information|233
2|Advice for Improvement|233
3|Perfecting the Centralized Judicial Disclosure Platform|233
3|Actively Releasing and Timely Updating Judicial Information|234
3|Reinforcing the Auxiliary Staff|234
3|Further Regulating Online Non-disclosure Approval|234
3|Improving the Case Information Management System|235
1|9 Zhejiang Court Judicial Transparency Index Report (2015)|236
2|Indicator System|237
2|Evaluation Results|238
3|Overall Results|238
2|Highlights|249
3|Challenges|250
4|Unbalanced Development of Judicial Openness|250
4|Unbalanced Development of Judicial Openness in Various Regions|251
3|Difficulties Facing Judicial Transparency|252
2|Advice for Improvement|252
3|Raise the Awareness About Judicial Transparency|253
3|Rely on Informatization to Promote Judicial Transparency|253
3|Improve Policies and Mechanisms to Make Steady Progress|254
3|Synchronize Judicial Transparency and Judicial Ability|254
1|10 China Procuratorial Transparency Index Report (2015)|256
2|Indicators and Objects of Evaluation|256
2|Overall Evaluation Results|260
3|Progress Made in Procuratorial Information Disclosure in 2015|263
4|Rules on Disclosure Continues to Improve|263
4|Great Leap-Forward in Case Information Disclosure Website|264
4|Focus Was Put on News Release|264
4|Micro Platforms Gained Rapid Development|264
4|More and More Procuratorates Made Public Legal Documents|265
4|Financial Information and Information on Three Types of Public Expenditure Were Better Disclosed|265
3|Challenges in Current Work of Procuratorial Information Disclosure|265
4|Some Procuratorates Had no Portal Website|265
4|Some Websites Were Found of Poor Maintenance|266
4|Some Websites Had Non-standard Sections|266
4|Non-standard Contents Issued on the Websites and Unscientific Information Categorization|266
4|Unbalanced Development of the Disclosure of Information About Procuratorial Affairs|267
4|Information Disclosure Was to Some Extent not Satisfactory|267
2|Evaluation Results in Indicators|267
3|Platform Construction|267
3|Procuratorial Affairs|268
3|Procuratorial Teams|270
3|Procuratorial Cases|272
2|Advice for Improvement|273
1|11 China Procuratorial Transparency Index Report (2016)|275
2|Objects, Indicators and Methods of Evaluation|276
2|Overall Evaluation Results|276
2|Highlights|279
2|Challenges|285
2|Advice and Prospects|288