滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报]
滕彪文集
·浦志强 滕彪: 王天成诉周叶中案代理词
·选择维权是一种必然/德国之声
·A courageous Chinese lawyer urges his country to follow its own laws
·警方建议起诉许志永,意见书似“公民范本”
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·滕彪访谈录:在“反动”的道路上越走越远
·因家暴杀夫被核准死刑 学界联名呼吁“刀下留人”
·川妇因反抗家暴面临死刑 各界紧急呼吁刀下留人
·Activist’s Death Questioned as U.N. Considers Chinese Rights Report
·Tales of an unjust justice
·打虎不是反腐
·What Is a “Legal Education Center” in China
·曹雅学:谁是许志永—— 与滕彪博士的访谈
·高层有人倒行逆施 民间却在不断成长
·让我们记住作恶的法官
·China’s growing human rights movement can claim many accomplishments
·總有一種花將會開遍中華大地/郭宏治
·不要忘记为争取​自由而失去自由的人们
·Testimony at CECC Hearing on China’s Crackdown on Rights Advocates
·Tiananmen at 25: China's next revolution may already be underway
·宗教自由普度共识
·"Purdue Consensus on Religious Freedom"
·Beijing urged to respect religious freedom amid ‘anti-church’ crackd
·“中共难容宗教对意识形态的消解”
·非常规威慑
·许志永自由中国公民梦不碎
·滕彪维园演讲
·Speech during the June 4th Vigil in Victoria Park in Hong Kong
·坦克辗压下的中国
·呂秉權﹕滕彪赤子心「死諫」香港
·【林忌评论】大陆没民主 香港没普选?
·曾志豪:滕彪都站出來,你呢?
·June 2014: Remembering Tiananmen: The View from Hong Kong
·The Strength to Save Oneself
·讓北京知道 要甚麼樣的未來/苹果日报
·否認屠殺的言論自由?
·Beyond Stability Maintenance-From Surveillance to Elimination/Teng bia
·从稳控模式到扫荡模式
·為自由,免於恐懼越絕壑——記滕彪談中國維權路
·就律协点名维权律师“无照”执业 滕彪答德国之声记者问
·法官如何爱国?
·滕彪给全国律协的公开信
·郑州十君子公民声援团募款倡议书
·Politics of the Death Penalty in China
·What sustains Chinese truth-tellers
·在人权灾难面前不应沉默
·From Stability Maintenance to Wiping Out/Teng biao
·自由不是一個禮物,而是一個任務
·抱薪救火的严打政策
·习近平要回到文革吗?
·中国宪法的结构性缺陷
·25 years later, Tiananmen cause is still costly
·A Chinese activist: Out of prison but not free
·中国人权有进步吗?
·Activist lawyer vows to keep fighting for human rights
·高智晟:走出监狱却没有自由
·VOA时事大家谈:维权/维稳
·和平香港行動呼籲
·沉默的吶喊
·Head Off a Tiananmen Massacre in Hong Kong/Yang jianli,Teng Biao,Hu ji
·滕彪被中国政法大学除名 因参与新公民运动
· Ilham Tohti should get the Nobel peace prize, not life in prison
·受难的伊力哈木
·香港人不会接受一个假选举
· Chinese activist scholar Teng Biao on how Occupy Central affects main
·大陆法律人关于支持港人真普选和释放大陆声援公民的声明
·« Révolution des parapluies » contre Pékin / Teng biao
·We Stand With You
·从占领中环到伞花革命
·不可承受的革命之重
·中国维权运动的历史和现状
·Don’t Get Too Excited About the Investigation of Zhou Yongkang
·Sensing subversion, China throws the book at kids' libraries
·China’s Unstoppable Lawyers: An Interview With Teng Biao
·专访滕彪:中国那些百折不回的律师们/纽约书评
·法治還是匪治
·努力实现匪治
·Hongkong: the Unbearable Weight of the Revolution
·Courts are told what decision to make in important cases
·RISKY BUSINESS fighting for Human Rights in China
·藏族、維吾爾族、南(内)蒙古族以及漢族活動人士的聯合聲明
·A STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY FROM A TIBETAN, UYGHUR, SOUTHERN MONGOLIAN,
·The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion
·如果有人倾听你对 昨夜梦境的复述(诗四首)
·China’s Empty Promise of Rule by Law
·Sensing subversion, China throws the book at kids' libraries
·VOA时事大家谈:中国司法不独立,如何进行司法改革?
·VOA时事大家谈:通奸女官员被“游街”:罪有应得还是侵犯人权?
·滕彪:中共“依法治国”的画皮
·What will this crackdown on activists do to China’s nascent civil soc
·浦志强、滕彪:李保华诉周国平名誉权纠纷案代理词
·The most dangerous job in law
·关于撤销《黑龙江省垦区条例》的建议
·Selective Blindness over China and Huamn Rights
·中共体制是一个不定时的炸弹/VOA
·滕彪在伦敦闹市被打劫
·「西方學者自我審查問題嚴重」/BBC
·CHINA'S LONG ROAD TO DEATH PENALTY REFORM
·Blood, Justice and Corruption: Why the Chinese Love Their Death Penalt
·完善我国宪法人权保护条款的建议
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报


   金融时报 Jamil Anderlini
   
   陶景洲和滕彪代表着中国司法体系的阴阳两极。两人都毕业于极具声望的北京大学法学院(Peking University law school),却走上了截然不同的职业道路,得到的回报也有天壤之别。
   

   陶景洲在美国众达律师事务所(Jones Day)豪华的北京办事处工作,是这家事务所的合伙人。1977年,他成为中国20年来的第一批法律系学生。“我们那时没有任何法律书籍,”他表示,“因为当时在中国几乎没有任何法律可言。”
   
   相比之下,滕彪从遍布刑事司法体系的暗纹中发掘出自己的职业定位——在这个体系中,律师经常要为当事人的政治罪行承担责任。
   
   农民出身的滕彪现年35岁,2002年毕业于北京大学,获得博士学位。从那以后,他成为知名律师,经常为那些被剥夺政治权利的人辩护。事实上,因为组织一群律师为3月拉萨暴乱后被捕的西藏抗议者提供辩护,滕彪今年6月被剥夺了律师执业资格。
   
   他若不是一直坚持原则,为被压制的民众辩护,滕彪很早以前就能加入中国新生的中产阶级行列——这个阶层需要一套法律体制,能够充分保护其财产和个人权利。
   
   中国的法律体制已经经历巨变。30年前,陶景洲的班上只有82名“敢为天下先”的法律学生,与之相比,今天全国600多所法律院校共有30万学生。
   
   但是,现行体制仍然无力应对日益增多的需求。过去5年间,中国法院审结案件近3200万起,其中超过三分之二是由公司或个人提出诉讼的民事或经济案件。
   
   在极权国家生活的现实,也为法律体制带来不确定性。
   < p>北京大学直言不讳的法学教授贺卫方表示,有权有势的人有很多机会干涉法律。
   
   “事实上,在中国不存在真正西方意义上的法律体制,”他宣称。
   
   现行法规的执行经常并不严格——如果你把中国完备的环境法与窗外的现实相比较,或是读到中国宪法保障所有公民享有宗教信仰自由、言论自由和结社自由,这一点就变得显而易见。
   
   在刑事案件和人们广泛关注的民事案件中,经常存在政治干涉;而在不那么重要的案件中,贿赂法官和公诉人则是常见的做法。
   
   “中国法律体制最大的问题是,政治与法律没有分立,”滕彪表示。“在现行体制下,不可能实现独立的司法权,因为法律被视作服务于党的工具。”
   
   每级法院之上都有一个特殊的共产党委员会——政法委,在“政治”案件中,政法委有权否决法院意见。在较小的地方,政法委书记经常由当地公安局局长担任,这使得法院在事实上成为公安部门的附属机构。
   
   陶景洲认为,与文化大革命的余波相比,这些问题都不严重——当时,他刚刚开始上大学。
   
   当他进入新设立的北京大学法学院时,这个学院的存在都是“国家机密”,只有家庭出身够“红”的孩子才能入学。他们的教授大多刚刚从农村或生产队回来。上世纪50年代后期,毛泽东发起残酷的反右运动,将知识分子送下乡,实质上终结了中国的法律专业。
   
   在法国学习法律并从业多年之后,陶景洲于上世纪90年代初回到国内,为那些在中国寻求投资机会的外国公司服务。如今,他们这一行业已相当繁荣。
   
   自他回国以后,法律界又经历了革命。上世纪80年代,多数法官都是来自公务员或军官队伍,从未学过法律。而根据中国政府在2005年发布的最新数据,当年,中国持有学士或以上学位的法官刚好超过半数;10年前,这个比例只有7%。
   
   滕彪的道路截然不同。他在北京市郊狭小的办公室里工作,勉强能够糊口,因为他为之辩护的都是中国的棘手人群——法轮功信徒、持不同政见者和未经国家批准的基督教会的组织者。中国政府要求律师每年进行执业证年检,并经常拒绝批准滕彪等“麻烦制造者”的年检登记。
   
   滕彪不仅是在拿自己的职业生涯冒险。今年3月,在中国“橡皮图章”性质的全国人大召开年度会议期间,他在大街上被人掳走,塞进一辆没有牌照的汽车,戴上头罩,送到一个不明地点。在那儿,他遭到审问和恐吓,两天后才被送回城里。
   
   偷袭他的人从未表明自己的身份,但滕彪怀疑他们是国家安全部门的人,因为他们曾多次威胁他,称如果他不停止撰写文章批评政府和法律体系,就把他关进监狱。
   
   但是,他没有胆怯。“我为工作付出了巨大代价,但这不足以让我放弃,”他表示。“我必须继续工作,因为愿意接手这些案件的律师太少了。”
   
   
   译者/何黎
   
   http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abf9327c-58c9-11dd-a093-000077b07658.html
   
   July 23, 2008
   Rewards and risks of Chinese legal career
   
   By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
   
   Tao Jingzhou and Teng Biao represent the yin and yang of China’s justice system. Both graduated from the prestigious Peking University law school, but they have followed very different career paths and been rewarded in very different ways.
   
   Mr Tao works out of the plush Beijing office of the American law firm Jones Day, where he is a partner. In 1977 he belonged to the first batch of Chinese law students in 20 years. “We didn’t have any law books,” he says, “because there were hardly any laws in China.”
   
   Mr Teng’s career, by contrast, has been scraped out of the dark cracks that pervade the criminal justice system, where lawyers are often held responsible for their clients’ political crimes. A 35-year-old from a peasant background, Mr Teng graduated in 2002 with a PhD from Peking University and has since become famous as a defender of the disenfranchised. He was in effect disbarred in June for organising a group of lawyers offering to defend Tibetan protesters arrested in the aftermath of March riots in Lhasa.
   
   Were it not for his principled defence of the downtrodden, Mr Teng would long ago have joined the ranks of China’s burgeoning middle classes, who are demanding a legal system that adequately protects their property and individual rights.
   
   That legal system has undergone vast changes. The 82 pioneer law students in Mr Tao’s class 30 years ago compare with 300,000 in more than 600 law schools today.
   
   But it remains ill-equipped to handle the increasing demands placed on it. In the last five years, Chinese courts ruled on nearly 32m cases, more than two-thirds of which were civil or economic cases brought by companies or individuals.
   
   The realities of living in a totalitarian state also lend uncertainty to the legal system. Opportunities abound for powerful individuals to intervene, says He Weifeng, an outspoken legal professor at Peking University.
   
   “Actually, there is no real legal system in the western sense in China,” he declares.
   
   Enforcement of existing legislation is often lax – something that becomes apparent when you compare China’s excellent environmental laws with the reality outside the window or read the country’s constitution, which guarantees all citizens freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of political association.
   
   In criminal cases and high-profile civil cases, political interference is rife, while in smaller cases bribing judges and prosecutors is the norm.
   
   “The biggest problem with China’s legal system is that politics and the law are not separate,” says Mr Teng. “An independent judiciary is not possible under the current system because the law is regarded as a tool to serve the party.”
   
   Every court includes a special Communist party committee with the power to overrule it in “political” cases. In smaller towns it is often headed by the local police chief, in effect making the court a subsidiary of the police department.
   
   Mr Tao argues those problems are mild compared with the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution, when he began his studies. When he landed at the new Peking University law school its very existence was a “state secret” and only children with suitably “red” backgrounds could attend. Most of his professors were just back from the countryside or labour camps, where they were sent during Mao Zedong’s brutal anti-rightist campaign that virtually ended the legal profession in China in the late 1950s.
   
   After studying and practising law in France for many years, Mr Tao returned in the early 1990s to what is now a thriving practice working for international companies seeking to invest in China.
   
   Since his return the legal profession has undergone another revolution. In the 1980s most judges were former civil servants or military officers who had never studied the law. By 2005, the last time the government released figures, just over half of China’s judges held bachelor degrees or above, up from just 7 per cent a decade earlier.
   
   Mr Teng’s path remains very different. From his tiny office on the outskirts of Beijing, he barely makes a living defending China’s untouchables – Falun Gong practitioners, dissidents and organisers of non-state-approved Christian churches. The government requires lawyers to renew their practice licences annually and often refuses to renew them for “troublemakers” such as Mr Teng.
   
   He is not just risking his career. During the March annual meeting of China’s rubber-stamp parliament he was grabbed off the street, bundled into an unmarked car and hooded before being driven to an unknown location. There he was interrogated and threatened for two days before being returned to town. His assailants never identified themselves but Mr Teng suspects they were state security agents, as they repeatedly threatened to put him in prison if he continued to write articles criticising the government and legal system.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场