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
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
[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