Prof. Jieren HU is a distinguished professor in the Law School at Hangzhou City University (former Zhejiang University City College) and a visiting professor in the Faculty of Law and Sociology at Qinghai Normal University. She is also an adjunct professor in the law school at Tongji University and a visiting scholar in the Center for China Studies at UC Berkeley. She got her Ph.D at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2009. Her major researches focus on dispute resolution, social governance, and marriage and family in Mainland China. She has published quite a number of books, journal papers including those in Asian Survey, China Review, Journal of Contemporary China, China Information. etc., and also in many Chinese academic journals. In addition to academics, she has been the “double-thousand” expert nominated by the State Council of China, the special mediator of the Second Intermediary Court in Shanghai, and the Member of Hong Kong and Macao Law Association and Shanghai Law Society.
In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted... more In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted to solve social conflicts and improve social governance? To what extent can digital technology help prevent organized opposition and enhance social stability? If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has done everything it can to better address public discontent and prevent collective activism through digital technology, why should it simultaneously create new conflicts that may bring to social unrest and threaten political stability? What is the impact of digital technology on dispute resolution and social governance in China? Based on in-depth field research conducted in China between 2019 and 2023, this book raises a theoretical concept of “rightful control” and demonstrates the news means of dispute resolution used by the CCP through an extensive application of and dependence on digital technology and its impact on state-society relations. Despite that the party-state is committed to rule by law and practicing rightful control “by law and policy,” the “state of exception” exists when it needs to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. This, however, shows that when it is more resorted to rightful control beyond law and policy, it would not only fail to construct an image of a responsible state but also lead to the counterproductive result, that is, it creates new conflicts that may cause social instability and threaten regime legitimacy. The adoption of the “state of exception” under authoritarianism explains why digital technology could only perform a limited role in strengthening social control and improving social governance since it creates an increasing risk of social discontent and political instability when digital technology is abused and illegally implemented, which will finally give rise to citizen complaints and damage regime legitimacy. The study of dispute settlement and social governance in digital China provides a new dimension to the explanation of state-society relations in China in the new ear under Xi Jinping’s rule, when digital technology is widely used in social governance.
Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the... more Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the Chinese Communist Party is now widely applying a mode of digital governance to contain social grievances and strengthen social stability. Although digital technology itself does help facilitate dispute resolution and stability maintenance by more effectively defusing collective actions and preventing/settling social disputes, the political system and power structure under authoritarianism, to a larger extent, shapes and affects the operation and outcome of digital governance. Even though the party-state is committed to rule by law and promoting a digital governance 'by law and policy', the 'state of exception' is invoked when it has to rely on digital governance 'beyond law and policy' in order to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. However, this approach not only fails to construct an accountable state image but may also lead to counterproductive outcomes. The study of digital governance in China adds new elements to the explanation of the condition for a 'state of exception' under authoritarianism and also answers why the Chinese government tries to prevent and settle disputes while keeping creating them in the digital age.
In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted... more In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted to solve social conflicts and improve social governance? To what extent can digital technology help prevent organized opposition and enhance social stability? If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has done everything it can to better address public discontent and prevent collective activism through digital technology, why should it simultaneously create new conflicts that may bring to social unrest and threaten political stability? What is the impact of digital technology on dispute resolution and social governance in China? Based on in-depth field research conducted in China between 2019 and 2023, this book raises a theoretical concept of “rightful control” and demonstrates the news means of dispute resolution used by the CCP through an extensive application of and dependence on digital technology and its impact on state-society relations. Despite that the party-state is committed to rule by law and practicing rightful control “by law and policy,” the “state of exception” exists when it needs to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. This, however, shows that when it is more resorted to rightful control beyond law and policy, it would not only fail to construct an image of a responsible state but also lead to the counterproductive result, that is, it creates new conflicts that may cause social instability and threaten regime legitimacy. The adoption of the “state of exception” under authoritarianism explains why digital technology could only perform a limited role in strengthening social control and improving social governance since it creates an increasing risk of social discontent and political instability when digital technology is abused and illegally implemented, which will finally give rise to citizen complaints and damage regime legitimacy. The study of dispute settlement and social governance in digital China provides a new dimension to the explanation of state-society relations in China in the new ear under Xi Jinping’s rule, when digital technology is widely used in social governance.
本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结... more 本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结合案例分析和深度访谈,本书重点探讨:第一,群团组织如何参与矛盾纠纷多元化解和社会治理?第二,群团组织作为中国共产党连接基层群众的桥梁,采用哪些策略来促进地方政府与群众的沟通,从而推进社会治理和实现社会稳定?第三,群团组织以购买政府服务和直接孵化社会组织的方式参与纠纷解决和社会治理,与过往的法团主义或国家主导的社会多元主义有何不同?展示了怎样的国家社会关系的变化?本书重点透过对我国长三角地区妇联参与婚姻家庭纠纷调解、家庭暴力防治、化解疑难信访矛盾纠纷的实证案例,展示了群团组织透过“柔性治理”在诉讼和非诉讼的纠纷化解机制之外发挥了多元纠纷化解和推动社会治理的作用。本书认为在我国当前社会转型期的复杂背景下,国家以“党建吸纳社会”的方式一方面通过群团组织对社会组织开展党建从而实现更有效的社会控制,另一方面由群团组织直接孵化的社会组织可以更有针对性培育满足特殊的治理需求,有助于提高社会组织的能力和所提供服务的水平。
After an extensive exploration and construction of the Internet Courts, China officially promulga... more After an extensive exploration and construction of the Internet Courts, China officially promulgated the Rules of Online Litigation of People's Courts in 2021. Additionally, the newly revised Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China came into effect on 1 January 2022. These two laws affirm the legality as well as comprehensively and systematically stipulate the entire process of civil online litigation (COL). The overall legal framework of COL mainly covers litigation activities such as filing a case online, responding to a lawsuit online, online submission of litigation materials, online identity authentication, electronic services, electronic material examination, and remote court hearings. In addition, China is now fully applying new information technology to establish an asynchronous trial system. However, due to factors such as the pursuit of political achievements by courts, judges' assessment pressure, and technological idealism, China's COL encounters a series of problems and predicaments, such as excessive interference of authority, affecting the quality of court hearing, difficulties in verifying the authenticity of electronic materials, difficulties in excluding witnesses, fragmented court hearing, and risk of security and accountability. If the limitations of COL cannot be overcome, a fair, safe, efficient, and long-term mechanism is impossible to be established.
诉源治理的核心价值追求是从逐步实现矛盾纠纷源头预防和有效化解,到最终实现“法治、德治、自治”相融合“天下无讼”的和谐社会目标。基于技术支撑的智治系统、预警监测的网格体系、敏捷有效的政府回应和数字... more 诉源治理的核心价值追求是从逐步实现矛盾纠纷源头预防和有效化解,到最终实现“法治、德治、自治”相融合“天下无讼”的和谐社会目标。基于技术支撑的智治系统、预警监测的网格体系、敏捷有效的政府回应和数字赋能纠纷解决的“网上枫桥经验”是数字时代基层社会矛盾源头预防、有效解决和实现诉源治理的关键。相较于传统的多元解纷机制,“网上枫桥经验”通过充分发挥大数据、人工智能等信息技术的治理优势,塑造党建引领、多部门协同的“整体智治十流程优化十风险预警”新型数字化基层治理体系。对传统纠纷解决模式进行系统化重塑,突破在制度设计、程序技术、资源配套等方面存在的瓶颈和短板,实现矛盾不上交、就地及时解决,缓解司法资源的供需矛盾,达到诉源治理和构建“无讼”社会的目标。
This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess... more This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's democracy" (WPD) raised by the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping. Through extensive fieldwork in Shanghai and based on a participationresponse analytical framework, four typical types of WPD are explored, i.e., participation for policy suggestion, participation for mobilization, participation for complaints and supervision, and participation for self-governance. It suggests that, unlike Western democracy, which is based on public scrutiny of the government and competitive elections, the responses of local officials to the demands of the people under WPD are more dependent on the assessment of higher authorities and their expectations for promotion. At the same time, public participation is state-mobilized and people express their voices, exercise their powers, and supervise the government in a conditional manner. Despite limitations, WPD has helped to facilitate local officials' response to people's demands and engaged more public opinion in the policymaking process. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the democratic governance in communist regimes and the theoretical development of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics.
技术与治理融合已成为治理现代化的重要实现形式和基本特征。技术并非简单植入治理场景并必然产生治理绩效,其赋能、赋权效应存在不确定性。技术运用的适配性是技术能否从工具转换成范式,变革治理模式,提升治... more 技术与治理融合已成为治理现代化的重要实现形式和基本特征。技术并非简单植入治理场景并必然产生治理绩效,其赋能、赋权效应存在不确定性。技术运用的适配性是技术能否从工具转换成范式,变革治理模式,提升治理效能的关键。技术适配张力和各种适配性偏差,是导致“技术反治理”现象的 主 因。从“工具—体系—行动”维度,通过适配性视角考察技术与治理互融互促的结构性、本源性逻辑,基层数字化改革应依赖技术嵌入、结构吸纳与社会协同的并进,达成“技术—价值—结构—生态”的多向度适配,实现系统性治理形态升级。技术与治理形成价值层、结构层、生态层互适融合,从治理工具、治理体系、治理行动全面驱动数字化变革。技术治理最终应走向系统性、适配化的整体治理。
《中华人民共和国家庭教育促进法》规定家庭教育应当“尊重未成年人人格尊严,保护未成年人隐私权和个人信息”。然而在司法实践中,父母在家庭教育过程中侵犯未成年子女隐私,导致家庭纠纷或使子女遭受精神损害... more 《中华人民共和国家庭教育促进法》规定家庭教育应当“尊重未成年人人格尊严,保护未成年人隐私权和个人信息”。然而在司法实践中,父母在家庭教育过程中侵犯未成年子女隐私,导致家庭纠纷或使子女遭受精神损害的案例不在少数。化解上述困境、推动建设良好的家教家风,对建设和谐社会具有重要意义。基于此,通过分析未成年子女隐私权保护的理论与实践基础,并基于对未成年子女隐私权保护的个案研究,研究揭示了在《家庭教育促进法》实施背景下未成年人隐私权保护的法律困境,进而从普及权利观念、完善法律保护措施、建设社会协同组织等角度提出完善未成年人隐私权法律保护的实施路径,以期充分践行《家庭教育促进法》的立法趣旨,实现家庭教育中“管教与尊重的平衡”。
This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's... more This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's democracy" (WPD) raised by the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping. Through extensive fieldwork in Shanghai and based on a participationresponse analytical framework, four typical types of WPD are explored, i.e., participation for policy suggestion, participation for mobilization, participation for complaints and supervision, and participation for self-governance. It suggests that, unlike Western democracy, which is based on public scrutiny of the government and competitive elections, the responses of local officials to the demands of the people under WPD are more dependent on the assessment of higher authorities and their expectations for promotion. At the same time, public participation is state-mobilized and people express their voices, exercise their powers, and supervise the government in a conditional manner. Despite limitations, WPD has helped to facilitate local officials' response to people's demands and engaged more public opinion in the policymaking process. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the democratic governance in communist regimes and the theoretical development of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics.
Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the... more Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the Chinese Communist Party is now widely applying a mode of digital governance to contain social grievances and strengthen social stability. Although digital technology itself does help facilitate dispute resolution and stability maintenance by more effectively defusing collective actions and preventing/settling social disputes, the political system and power structure under authoritarianism, to a larger extent, shapes and affects the operation and outcome of digital governance. Even though the party-state is committed to rule by law and promoting a digital governance 'by law and policy', the 'state of exception' is invoked when it has to rely on digital governance 'beyond law and policy' in order to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. However, this approach not only fails to construct an accountable state image but may also lead to counterproductive outcomes. The study of digital governance in China adds new elements to the explanation of the condition for a 'state of exception' under authoritarianism and also answers why the Chinese government tries to prevent and settle disputes while keeping creating them in the digital age.
Conflict between local state and churches in China has increased both in number and intensity in ... more Conflict between local state and churches in China has increased both in number and intensity in recent years due to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) tightened regulation and control over religious affairs and religious groups. Drawing on the theoretical insight of the positive function of social conflict proposed by Coser and the empirical findings in China, this paper tries to decode the impact of China's religious policies on state-church interaction under Xi Jinping's rule. It finds that the overall impacts of state intensified control over religions are twofold. On the one hand, state intervention paradoxically serves as a facilitating factor to enhance religious group's internal cohesion, reinforce their group identity and help them reflect on and change their survival and development strategies. On the other hand, increased state control at the same time generates an unpleasant outcome that is not beneficial for a peaceful state-church interaction.
This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented b... more This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented by Chinese courts called, “Source Governance of Social Disputes” (SGSD). Differing from existing extralegal means of dispute resolution, SGSD aims to bring courts back to the center of dispute resolution by preemptively intervening in dispute-prone processes via technologybased mechanisms. However, this has generated two pitfalls. Although preemptive repression can be adopted by deploying digital technologies to impose mediation on people and persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.
In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted... more In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted to solve social conflicts and improve social governance? To what extent can digital technology help prevent organized opposition and enhance social stability? If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has done everything it can to better address public discontent and prevent collective activism through digital technology, why should it simultaneously create new conflicts that may bring to social unrest and threaten political stability? What is the impact of digital technology on dispute resolution and social governance in China? Based on in-depth field research conducted in China between 2019 and 2023, this book raises a theoretical concept of “rightful control” and demonstrates the news means of dispute resolution used by the CCP through an extensive application of and dependence on digital technology and its impact on state-society relations. Despite that the party-state is committed to rule by law and practicing rightful control “by law and policy,” the “state of exception” exists when it needs to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. This, however, shows that when it is more resorted to rightful control beyond law and policy, it would not only fail to construct an image of a responsible state but also lead to the counterproductive result, that is, it creates new conflicts that may cause social instability and threaten regime legitimacy. The adoption of the “state of exception” under authoritarianism explains why digital technology could only perform a limited role in strengthening social control and improving social governance since it creates an increasing risk of social discontent and political instability when digital technology is abused and illegally implemented, which will finally give rise to citizen complaints and damage regime legitimacy. The study of dispute settlement and social governance in digital China provides a new dimension to the explanation of state-society relations in China in the new ear under Xi Jinping’s rule, when digital technology is widely used in social governance.
Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the... more Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the Chinese Communist Party is now widely applying a mode of digital governance to contain social grievances and strengthen social stability. Although digital technology itself does help facilitate dispute resolution and stability maintenance by more effectively defusing collective actions and preventing/settling social disputes, the political system and power structure under authoritarianism, to a larger extent, shapes and affects the operation and outcome of digital governance. Even though the party-state is committed to rule by law and promoting a digital governance 'by law and policy', the 'state of exception' is invoked when it has to rely on digital governance 'beyond law and policy' in order to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. However, this approach not only fails to construct an accountable state image but may also lead to counterproductive outcomes. The study of digital governance in China adds new elements to the explanation of the condition for a 'state of exception' under authoritarianism and also answers why the Chinese government tries to prevent and settle disputes while keeping creating them in the digital age.
In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted... more In the digital age, what new mechanisms of dispute resolution have the Chinese government adopted to solve social conflicts and improve social governance? To what extent can digital technology help prevent organized opposition and enhance social stability? If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has done everything it can to better address public discontent and prevent collective activism through digital technology, why should it simultaneously create new conflicts that may bring to social unrest and threaten political stability? What is the impact of digital technology on dispute resolution and social governance in China? Based on in-depth field research conducted in China between 2019 and 2023, this book raises a theoretical concept of “rightful control” and demonstrates the news means of dispute resolution used by the CCP through an extensive application of and dependence on digital technology and its impact on state-society relations. Despite that the party-state is committed to rule by law and practicing rightful control “by law and policy,” the “state of exception” exists when it needs to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. This, however, shows that when it is more resorted to rightful control beyond law and policy, it would not only fail to construct an image of a responsible state but also lead to the counterproductive result, that is, it creates new conflicts that may cause social instability and threaten regime legitimacy. The adoption of the “state of exception” under authoritarianism explains why digital technology could only perform a limited role in strengthening social control and improving social governance since it creates an increasing risk of social discontent and political instability when digital technology is abused and illegally implemented, which will finally give rise to citizen complaints and damage regime legitimacy. The study of dispute settlement and social governance in digital China provides a new dimension to the explanation of state-society relations in China in the new ear under Xi Jinping’s rule, when digital technology is widely used in social governance.
本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结... more 本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结合案例分析和深度访谈,本书重点探讨:第一,群团组织如何参与矛盾纠纷多元化解和社会治理?第二,群团组织作为中国共产党连接基层群众的桥梁,采用哪些策略来促进地方政府与群众的沟通,从而推进社会治理和实现社会稳定?第三,群团组织以购买政府服务和直接孵化社会组织的方式参与纠纷解决和社会治理,与过往的法团主义或国家主导的社会多元主义有何不同?展示了怎样的国家社会关系的变化?本书重点透过对我国长三角地区妇联参与婚姻家庭纠纷调解、家庭暴力防治、化解疑难信访矛盾纠纷的实证案例,展示了群团组织透过“柔性治理”在诉讼和非诉讼的纠纷化解机制之外发挥了多元纠纷化解和推动社会治理的作用。本书认为在我国当前社会转型期的复杂背景下,国家以“党建吸纳社会”的方式一方面通过群团组织对社会组织开展党建从而实现更有效的社会控制,另一方面由群团组织直接孵化的社会组织可以更有针对性培育满足特殊的治理需求,有助于提高社会组织的能力和所提供服务的水平。
After an extensive exploration and construction of the Internet Courts, China officially promulga... more After an extensive exploration and construction of the Internet Courts, China officially promulgated the Rules of Online Litigation of People's Courts in 2021. Additionally, the newly revised Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China came into effect on 1 January 2022. These two laws affirm the legality as well as comprehensively and systematically stipulate the entire process of civil online litigation (COL). The overall legal framework of COL mainly covers litigation activities such as filing a case online, responding to a lawsuit online, online submission of litigation materials, online identity authentication, electronic services, electronic material examination, and remote court hearings. In addition, China is now fully applying new information technology to establish an asynchronous trial system. However, due to factors such as the pursuit of political achievements by courts, judges' assessment pressure, and technological idealism, China's COL encounters a series of problems and predicaments, such as excessive interference of authority, affecting the quality of court hearing, difficulties in verifying the authenticity of electronic materials, difficulties in excluding witnesses, fragmented court hearing, and risk of security and accountability. If the limitations of COL cannot be overcome, a fair, safe, efficient, and long-term mechanism is impossible to be established.
诉源治理的核心价值追求是从逐步实现矛盾纠纷源头预防和有效化解,到最终实现“法治、德治、自治”相融合“天下无讼”的和谐社会目标。基于技术支撑的智治系统、预警监测的网格体系、敏捷有效的政府回应和数字... more 诉源治理的核心价值追求是从逐步实现矛盾纠纷源头预防和有效化解,到最终实现“法治、德治、自治”相融合“天下无讼”的和谐社会目标。基于技术支撑的智治系统、预警监测的网格体系、敏捷有效的政府回应和数字赋能纠纷解决的“网上枫桥经验”是数字时代基层社会矛盾源头预防、有效解决和实现诉源治理的关键。相较于传统的多元解纷机制,“网上枫桥经验”通过充分发挥大数据、人工智能等信息技术的治理优势,塑造党建引领、多部门协同的“整体智治十流程优化十风险预警”新型数字化基层治理体系。对传统纠纷解决模式进行系统化重塑,突破在制度设计、程序技术、资源配套等方面存在的瓶颈和短板,实现矛盾不上交、就地及时解决,缓解司法资源的供需矛盾,达到诉源治理和构建“无讼”社会的目标。
This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess... more This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's democracy" (WPD) raised by the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping. Through extensive fieldwork in Shanghai and based on a participationresponse analytical framework, four typical types of WPD are explored, i.e., participation for policy suggestion, participation for mobilization, participation for complaints and supervision, and participation for self-governance. It suggests that, unlike Western democracy, which is based on public scrutiny of the government and competitive elections, the responses of local officials to the demands of the people under WPD are more dependent on the assessment of higher authorities and their expectations for promotion. At the same time, public participation is state-mobilized and people express their voices, exercise their powers, and supervise the government in a conditional manner. Despite limitations, WPD has helped to facilitate local officials' response to people's demands and engaged more public opinion in the policymaking process. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the democratic governance in communist regimes and the theoretical development of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics.
技术与治理融合已成为治理现代化的重要实现形式和基本特征。技术并非简单植入治理场景并必然产生治理绩效,其赋能、赋权效应存在不确定性。技术运用的适配性是技术能否从工具转换成范式,变革治理模式,提升治... more 技术与治理融合已成为治理现代化的重要实现形式和基本特征。技术并非简单植入治理场景并必然产生治理绩效,其赋能、赋权效应存在不确定性。技术运用的适配性是技术能否从工具转换成范式,变革治理模式,提升治理效能的关键。技术适配张力和各种适配性偏差,是导致“技术反治理”现象的 主 因。从“工具—体系—行动”维度,通过适配性视角考察技术与治理互融互促的结构性、本源性逻辑,基层数字化改革应依赖技术嵌入、结构吸纳与社会协同的并进,达成“技术—价值—结构—生态”的多向度适配,实现系统性治理形态升级。技术与治理形成价值层、结构层、生态层互适融合,从治理工具、治理体系、治理行动全面驱动数字化变革。技术治理最终应走向系统性、适配化的整体治理。
《中华人民共和国家庭教育促进法》规定家庭教育应当“尊重未成年人人格尊严,保护未成年人隐私权和个人信息”。然而在司法实践中,父母在家庭教育过程中侵犯未成年子女隐私,导致家庭纠纷或使子女遭受精神损害... more 《中华人民共和国家庭教育促进法》规定家庭教育应当“尊重未成年人人格尊严,保护未成年人隐私权和个人信息”。然而在司法实践中,父母在家庭教育过程中侵犯未成年子女隐私,导致家庭纠纷或使子女遭受精神损害的案例不在少数。化解上述困境、推动建设良好的家教家风,对建设和谐社会具有重要意义。基于此,通过分析未成年子女隐私权保护的理论与实践基础,并基于对未成年子女隐私权保护的个案研究,研究揭示了在《家庭教育促进法》实施背景下未成年人隐私权保护的法律困境,进而从普及权利观念、完善法律保护措施、建设社会协同组织等角度提出完善未成年人隐私权法律保护的实施路径,以期充分践行《家庭教育促进法》的立法趣旨,实现家庭教育中“管教与尊重的平衡”。
This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's... more This study provides an in-depth analysis of the grassroots practice of the "wholeprocess people's democracy" (WPD) raised by the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping. Through extensive fieldwork in Shanghai and based on a participationresponse analytical framework, four typical types of WPD are explored, i.e., participation for policy suggestion, participation for mobilization, participation for complaints and supervision, and participation for self-governance. It suggests that, unlike Western democracy, which is based on public scrutiny of the government and competitive elections, the responses of local officials to the demands of the people under WPD are more dependent on the assessment of higher authorities and their expectations for promotion. At the same time, public participation is state-mobilized and people express their voices, exercise their powers, and supervise the government in a conditional manner. Despite limitations, WPD has helped to facilitate local officials' response to people's demands and engaged more public opinion in the policymaking process. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the democratic governance in communist regimes and the theoretical development of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics.
Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the... more Drawing on intensive fieldwork conducted in China from 2019 to 2022, this article argues that the Chinese Communist Party is now widely applying a mode of digital governance to contain social grievances and strengthen social stability. Although digital technology itself does help facilitate dispute resolution and stability maintenance by more effectively defusing collective actions and preventing/settling social disputes, the political system and power structure under authoritarianism, to a larger extent, shapes and affects the operation and outcome of digital governance. Even though the party-state is committed to rule by law and promoting a digital governance 'by law and policy', the 'state of exception' is invoked when it has to rely on digital governance 'beyond law and policy' in order to serve the necessity of consolidating its political power and ruling base when social stability is threatened. However, this approach not only fails to construct an accountable state image but may also lead to counterproductive outcomes. The study of digital governance in China adds new elements to the explanation of the condition for a 'state of exception' under authoritarianism and also answers why the Chinese government tries to prevent and settle disputes while keeping creating them in the digital age.
Conflict between local state and churches in China has increased both in number and intensity in ... more Conflict between local state and churches in China has increased both in number and intensity in recent years due to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) tightened regulation and control over religious affairs and religious groups. Drawing on the theoretical insight of the positive function of social conflict proposed by Coser and the empirical findings in China, this paper tries to decode the impact of China's religious policies on state-church interaction under Xi Jinping's rule. It finds that the overall impacts of state intensified control over religions are twofold. On the one hand, state intervention paradoxically serves as a facilitating factor to enhance religious group's internal cohesion, reinforce their group identity and help them reflect on and change their survival and development strategies. On the other hand, increased state control at the same time generates an unpleasant outcome that is not beneficial for a peaceful state-church interaction.
This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented b... more This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented by Chinese courts called, “Source Governance of Social Disputes” (SGSD). Differing from existing extralegal means of dispute resolution, SGSD aims to bring courts back to the center of dispute resolution by preemptively intervening in dispute-prone processes via technologybased mechanisms. However, this has generated two pitfalls. Although preemptive repression can be adopted by deploying digital technologies to impose mediation on people and persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.
本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结... more 本书针对中国转型社会矛盾纠纷化解的多元模式进行研究,揭示我国以工会、妇联和共青团为主的群团组织,以“柔性治理”模式参与社会矛盾纠纷化解和基层治理所具有的特殊效果,及其对国家社会关系产生的影响。结合案例分析和深度访谈,本书重点探讨:第一,群团组织如何参与矛盾纠纷多元化解和社会治理?第二,群团组织作为中国共产党连接基层群众的桥梁,采用哪些策略来促进地方政府与群众的沟通,从而推进社会治理和实现社会稳定?第三,群团组织以购买政府服务和直接孵化社会组织的方式参与纠纷解决和社会治理,与过往的法团主义或国家主导的社会多元主义有何不同?展示了怎样的国家社会关系的变化?本书重点透过对我国长三角地区妇联参与婚姻家庭纠纷调解、家庭暴力防治、化解疑难信访矛盾纠纷的实证案例,展示了群团组织透过“柔性治理”在诉讼和非诉讼的纠纷化解机制之外发挥了多元纠纷化解和推动社会治理的作用。本书认为在我国当前社会转型期的复杂背景下,国家以“党建吸纳社会”的方式一方面通过群团组织对社会组织开展党建从而实现更有效的社会控制,另一方面由群团组织直接孵化的社会组织可以更有针对性培育满足特殊的治理需求,有助于提高社会组织的能力和所提供服务的水平。
Through the study of the causes, processing and results of the group interest disputes in the urb... more Through the study of the causes, processing and results of the group interest disputes in the urban communities of China (represented by Shanghai), this book attempts to explore the following: First, what are the characteristics and differences of the means adopted for conflict resolution under different forms of state and social relations; and the settlement of group disputes involving government interests in the current social transformation period of China What are the characteristics and differences of the ways of decision-making. Second, as the communication intermediary between the community and the government, the community people's mediation organization how to coordinate and solve the group disputes between the government and the people, how to interact with the government. Combined with the relevant theories and five conflict resolution measurement models proposed by Blake and Merton (1964), this book explains the current interactive relationship model and cooperation mechanism between the state and social organizations in China by analyzing the role of "Linyue people's mediation studio" featured by government purchase services in the specific handling of community group disputes, and their action strategies and constraints. At present, China's state social relations are not society centered or state centered, but state-led social pluralism.
健全社会矛盾纠纷调解机制:当代中国"大调解"研究》重点对我国自2003年以来构建的"大调解"工作体系的概念、定位及其在全国范围的经验实践进行梳理归纳和批判分析,在此基础上针对当下大调解机制在依法... more 健全社会矛盾纠纷调解机制:当代中国"大调解"研究》重点对我国自2003年以来构建的"大调解"工作体系的概念、定位及其在全国范围的经验实践进行梳理归纳和批判分析,在此基础上针对当下大调解机制在依法治国进程中存在的问题给出改进和完善的对策建议。《健全社会矛盾纠纷调解机制:当代中国"大调解"研究》结合统计数据和真实案例,重点分析我国大调解机制运行中的典型模式及其存在的问题,包括江苏南通模式、四川广安模式、浙江枫桥模式和上海模式的特点,论述大调解机制对我国社会矛盾纠纷化解的重要意义及其作为司法救济的一种补充形式,可以有效应对我国当前频发的各类矛盾纠纷,同时也被证明对提升政府执政的合法性具有显著效果。
Uploads
Papers by Jieren Hu
persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.
persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.
一书中发现在后单位制时期, 居委会呈现出一种“内卷化’ ’(involution) 的特征,作者透过街区中国家和社会关系视角来分析我国社区建设运动所呈现出来的困境。针对当前城市管理体制存在的问题,如组织结构分化滞后于功能分化与整合、功能分化缺乏制度化约束, 或者制度文本形同
虚设等等, 都需要通过厘清政府的职责、重整城市管理体制和促进街区自治来改善。本书的价值在于提出将当前“ 两级政府、三级管理” 的体系改为扩大街道管理权限的“ 市一区” 两级政府架构的建议, 可以有助于彻底解决目前区与街道办事处的矛盾,同时适当调整政府的管理幅度,减少管理层次是提高管理效率的关键。
第二,作为社区与政府沟通中介的社区人民调解组织如何协调和解决群体性纠纷,如何与政府互动。
结合相关理论和布莱克、默顿(1964)的五种冲突解决测量模型,本书通过对以政府购买服务方式运作的“林乐人民调解工作室”在具体处理社区群体性纠纷中发挥的作用、各自的行动策略和受到的限制来解释当前中国**与社会组织的互动关系模式及其合作机制,并提出目前中国**社会关系不是以社会为中心的,也不是以**为中心,而是呈现出****的社会多元主义的运作模式。