The Code of Criminal Procedure is an indispensable procedure law to a modern rule-of-law state. An accused will be tried in compliance with the procedures provided under the Code, to examine whether the constitutive elements of the alleged crime have been met and how the accused shall be punished accordingly. Under legal positivism, only guilt provided under written code corresponds to justice (¡§just-by-law¡¨); whereas under natural law, apart from ¡§just-by-law,¡¨ ¡§just-by-nature¡¨ exists from the reason of human beings. Besides domestic laws, ideologies and universal norms conforming to contemporary civilization also provide references to the implementation of the procedure. This dissertation analyzes the criminal procedure system of the People's Republic of China (¡§PRC¡¨), including the Criminal Procedure Law, first adopted in 1979 and later amended in 1996, and National Human Rights Action Plan 2009-2010 released on April 13, 2009. From the history perspective, it looks into the evolution of legal system and the development of humanism in China. It also compares the PRC¡¦s criminal procedure with other countries in modern times. Finally, through case studies, it examines the difficulty and distress of PRC¡¦s criminal procedure system. From the perspective of historical study and comparative study, different history and culture background affect a regime¡¦s understanding of criminal procedure; however, following the execution of international conventions and closer interaction among countries, economic development continuously presses on improvement of political development. Consequently, the criminal due process has become a defined human rights ideology under a rule-of-law system. Finally, from the viewpoint of New Institutionalism, this dissertation tries to discover the impact of criminal due process to the legitimacy of a political regime. The author sincerely hopes that this dissertation will benefit the Chinese people, the development of the criminal due process, and the governance of the Chinese government.

Univ., Diss.--Paris.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-57).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 83-88).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-57).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 60-69).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 60-69).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 60-69).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 83-88).

The question asked by this thesis is when and why, as a matter of principle, should there be judicial scrutiny on the merits of administrative decisions on migration status ('migration status decisions') in the United Kingdom? It argues that this is a moral question, engaging concerns of fair treatment. The first two chapters examine the question theoretically. It is argued that access to justice is not a gift of citizenship and that migration status decision-making should be reviewable on the merits to avoid the appearance and/or occurrence of injustice in the light of the effects of migration control on individual migrants and the nature of migration status decision-making as 'very imperfect procedural justice' (save where a decision is not based on the judgment discretion of an administrator). The latter five chapters apply the normative claims to the United Kingdom constitutional context, including the relevant European regimes (European Convention on Fundamental Rights and European Union). First, as background to the argument, a history of recourse from migration status decision-making in the UK from the initial establishment of a review system in 1905 is sketched out. The history demonstrates the absence of a coherent or principled account of migration status appeals. The history is followed by a three-part critique of the current system of recourse in the UK. First rights of appeal in three case studies (deportation, offshore visitors and students) are examined. Secondly, the three standards of review available under judicial review (rationality, anxious scrutiny and proportionality) are critiqued, and thirdly, the contribution of European and international norms is considered. In general terms the thesis concludes that the current UK system of recourse is deficient in certain respects and suggests reform to the current appeals system.