Search

This article discusses the comparison of legal culture between the Chinese and Indonesian people in making contracts. A comparison of legal culture is carried out by comparing the legal culture of the Chinese and Indonesian people in complying with contract law based on the Chinese/Chinese Civil Code and Indonesian Civil Code as well as other related regulations in the field of contracting. Contract law in China is known as the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the people are called Chinese. However, on January 1, 2021, the Contract Law in China has been declared revoked and is no longer valid because a new law known as the Chinese Civil Code has been promulgated. Meanwhile, contract law in Indonesia is also known as the Civil Code, which was obtained from the colonial era government, and is still in force today. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, only the Civil Code used previously has been updated. The problem raised is how to compare the legal culture of the Chinese and Indonesian people in making contracts. The method used is normative legal research with a comparative approach. The analytical knife used is the general theory of contract law in positive law. Through the analysis carried out, the comparison factors were obtained as the basis for the comparison of making contracts by the Chinese and Indonesian people. From the results of this comparison, the differences and similarities of contract law that apply in Indonesia and China are obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept "rule of law" is used worldwide. However, the meaning of the concept varies, depending on several factors such as geography and history. This article provides a brief overview of how the concept is understood in the Swedish and Chinese legal contexts, by defining its different characteristics. The research confirms that the concept, which originates from the West, is used and perceived quite differently in the two countries. In fact, the use of different terminology, law-state thinking and socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, confirm the differences in understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how aspects of national culture may shape the design and implementation of public policy, using the example of energy policy in China. It focuses on cognitive style and on political and legal culture. China’s energy policies display a combination of pragmatism, incrementalism, internal contradiction and ambiguity. This is consistent with evidence from experimental psychology and history that the development of Chinese and East Asian cognitive styles have taken a path distinct from those of Western civilizations with their Greek philosophical heritage. These variations of cognitive style between cultures are reflected in brain function and genes. Policy implementation also bears features from imperial times in the political culture of China’s Communist Party and the contemporary legal system. These arguments reinforce existing calls for caution when seeking to transfer energy or other public policy approaches between countries with different cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public Art is the property of Shanghai Fine Arts Publisher Ltd. co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the related studies of ancestor worship disputes between Christians and the local people in the late Qing dynasty, neither the domestic nor foreign academic circles have placed sufficient attention on Chinese and Western legal cultural differences. From the perspective of the causes of disputes, the Chinese legal thought on property inheritance was closely connected with their obligation for ancestor worship. The Western legal tradition emphasizes that the right of inheritance couldn't be deprived. Therefore, differences of the combining or dividing of the right of property inheritance and the obligation of ancestor worship, were the important causes of the disputes of ancestor worship. From the perspective of the litigation process, the Chinese legal system focused on "reason", while the Western legal system focused on "provision". This difference is the important reason why Christians were in a good position while entering the proceedings of litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents findings from a content analysis of all 460 "Dear Lawyer Bao" (DLB) legal advice columns published in its ten-year history (1989-98) in the Beijing Evening News. While much sociolegal research has focused on the exercise of power in the legal process through the control of meaning in verbal, private face-to-face interactions, this article reveals similar meaning-making processes at play in publicly disseminated writing where the audience is far larger, the potential impact far wider, and the role of the state far greater. Lawyer Bao's popular image as valiant defender of ordinary people in trouble obscured and thus enhanced both the degree to which he was beholden to the state and the effectiveness with which he did the bidding of the state against the interests of the very letter-writers he purported to help. His ultimate allegiance to the state is reflected in two empirical patterns. First, the temporal distribution of problem topics featured in the DLB column corresponds less to shifts in public sentiment or objective popular needs and more to legislation, policy shifts, and political campaigns. Second, whether Lawyer Bao legitimized or delegitimized letter-writers' claims was determined primarily by the extent to which state interests were at stake in the problem at hand. Lawyer Bao tended to delegitimize labor grievances, housing demolition grievances, collective grievances of any kind, and other claims construed as potentially destabilizing or of challenge to state priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]