Modularising the adjudicative encounter: Procedural differentiation and institutional continuity in Chinese online litigation

Lingxiang Chen

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2767

Autores/as

Lingxiang Chen Liaoning University https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9192-8878

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2767

Palabras clave:

Resolución de litigios en línea, modularización, presencia en la sala de audiencias, configuración procesal, China

Resumen

La resolución de litigios en línea suele analizarse a través de la contraposición entre la participación presencial y la participación a distancia, o mediante la coexistencia de los modos en línea y fuera de línea. Este artículo examina una transformación institucional más detallada: cómo las normas procesales permiten configurar por separado los componentes del proceso judicial, al tiempo que preservan su continuidad jurídica. Mediante un análisis documental sociojurídico basado en la teoría de las normas chinas sobre litigios en línea entre 2018 y 2022, el artículo identifica tres patrones interrelacionados: la separabilidad regulada entre los participantes y las fases procesales; la separabilidad temporal limitada para determinadas actividades; y la reconstitución institucional selectiva a través de la autenticación, la calificación espacial y de funciones, la clasificación procesal y los expedientes comunes. Estos hallazgos respaldan el concepto de modularización del espacio judicial. La modularización se distingue de la hibridación y de la evaluación de la justicia procesal: identifica la relación, regida por normas, entre la diferenciación procesal y la continuidad institucional. Se utiliza China como un caso institucional que revela la teoría, no como modelo universal de justicia digital.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Estadísticas globales

86 Visualizaciones	13 Descargas
99 Total

Biografía del autor/a

Lingxiang Chen, Liaoning University

Lingxiang Chen is a lecturer at Discipline Inspection and Supervision College, Liaoning University, Shenyang, Liaoning, CN. He graduated from Peking University in July 2021 with a Master of Laws and a J.D.; from China University of Political Science and Law in July 2025 with a PhD in Comparative Law. He has published papers in domestic journals such as Medicine and Society, Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science). His research interests include comparative law, and medical policy. Institutional email: lingxiangchen@lnu.edu.cn / personal email: crainwiddison@gmail.com

Citas

Ahl, B., and Tieben, H., 2015. Modern Chinese court buildings, regime legitimacy and the public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law [online], 28(3), 603–626. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9416-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9416-y

Belloni, P., Jaspaert, E., and de Vocht, D., 2025. Presence, proximity and participation: Online court communication from a procedural justice perspective. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 154–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069

Branco, P., Casaleiro, P., and Dias, J. P., 2025. (Re)inventing the house of justice: From courthouse buildings to the metaverse. Cronos: Revista da Pós-Graduação em Ciências Sociais, 26(1), 82–94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21680/1982-5560.2025v26n1ID35867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21680/1982-5560.2025v26n1ID35867

Cappelletti, M., and Garth, B., 1978. Access to justice: The newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buffalo Law Review, 27, 181–292.

Contini, F., and Reiling, D., 2022. Double normalization: When procedural law is made digital. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 12(3), 654–688. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1305

de Vocht, D., and Jacobs, P., 2024. Can remote trials be fair trials? Exploring the potential effects of communication technology in the criminal justice context from an interdisciplinary perspective. Tilburg Law Review [online], 29(2), 1–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.383 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.383

Dubuc, C., and Sobański, K., 2026. Transforming attendance at the International Criminal Court: Judicial approaches to remote participation of witnesses and the accused. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2683 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2683

Dumoulin, L., and Licoppe, C., 2016. Videoconferencing, New Public Management, and organizational reform in the judiciary. Policy & Internet [online], 8(3), 313–333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124

Esko, T., 2025. Designing technology for legal work: A case study on boundaries and legal expertise. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 15(4), 1425–1449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2263

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2023. Fundamental rights of older people: Ensuring access to public services in digital societies [online]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2023/older-people-digital-rights

Flower, L., 2025. Virtual justice rituals: A sociological examination of the transition from physical presence to virtual participation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 64–83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065

Gao, W., and Xu, L., 2025. Online courts in China: A new hybrid model for access to justice. The China Review, 25(1), 75–106.

Genn, H., 1999. Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law. Oxford: Hart.

He, X., and Feng, J., 2021. Unfamiliarity and procedural justice: Litigants’ attitudes toward civil justice in southern China. Law & Society Review [online], 55(1), 104–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12525

Hedler, L., 2024. Risk and danger in the introduction of algorithms to courts: A comparative framework between EU and Brazil. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(5), 1315–1336. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859

McKay, C., 2018. The pixelated prisoner: Prison video links, court “appearance” and the justice matrix. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111506

Mulcahy, L., 2008. The unbearable lightness of being? Shifts towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(4), 464–489. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x

Mulcahy, L., 2011. Legal architecture: Justice, due process and the place of law. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2022. Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: Who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [online], 44(4), 455–476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713

Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2024. Digital justice: Engineering disadvantage? [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65265-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65265-3

Poulin, A. B., 2004. Criminal justice and videoconferencing technology: The remote defendant. Tulane Law Review, 78, 1089–1167.

Rossner, M., 2021. Remote rituals in virtual courts. Journal of Law and Society [online], 48(3), 334–361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12304

Rossner, M., and Tait, D., 2023. Presence and participation in a virtual court. Criminology & Criminal Justice [online], 23(1), 135–157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017372

Rowden, E., and Wallace, A., 2018. Remote judging: The impact of video links on the image and the role of the judge. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 14(4), 504–524. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552318000216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552318000216

Trevaskes, S., 2004. Propaganda work in Chinese courts: Public trials and sentencing rallies as sites of expressive punishment and public education in the People’s Republic of China. Punishment & Society [online], 6(1), 5–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504039087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504039087

Trevaskes, S., 2007. Courts and criminal justice in contemporary China. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Turner, J. I., 2025. Rethinking courtroom presence in the virtual era. Indiana Law Journal [online], 101(1), 1–52. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol101/iss1/1

Tyler, T. R., 2006. Why people obey the law. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828609

Wang, Z., and Chew, M. M., 2025. A new way to justice? Multimodal meaning construction in videoconferencing technology-based online criminal courts in China. Social Semiotics [online], 35(1), 18–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2023.2247354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2023.2247354