3 ms·
> What a blog of pseudo social/political science is that That would be the UK chapter of Amnesty International. Not familiar? > I've never heard of 'Rule by l
by T-A 3y ago
> What a blog of pseudo social/political science is that
That would be the UK chapter of Amnesty International. Not familiar?
> I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research
Is Stanford good enough for you?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#RuleLawRuleLaw https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#RuleLawRuleL...
Or Harvard?
https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/rule-by-law-or-rule-of-law/ https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/rule-by-law-or-rule-of-...
Maybe Cambridge?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rule-by-law/64D05AB3BEAFEE4C86E01883B9A143DC https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rule-by-law/64D05AB3BEA...
Or just google it, it's a well known concept.
> If you read the actual constitution it mandates
Lots of nice things, sure. So did the Soviet Union's constitution (I still have a copy of that one somewhere). But then there is the little detail of whether the words are actually applied in practice.
Here's what happened when a Chinese law professor had the audacity to suggest that the Party should actually abide by the constitution:
https://www.npr.org/2013/09/18/219671719/chinas-debate-must-the-party-follow-the-constitution https://www.npr.org/2013/09/18/219671719/chinas-debate-must-...
Old article, you say? Well then, here's what somebody else had to say about in 2019:
https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/xi-china-must-never-adopt-constitutionalism-separation-of-powers-or-judicial-independence/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/xi-china-must-never-adopt-co...
You may want to take note, he really doesn't like loose talk about constitutionalism in China.
> The list of wrongly accused is from 2013 but majority is from 2019-now
It's a live spreadsheet started in 2013. New cases are added as they occur. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I agree that faster reporting and the spreadsheet itself becoming more widely known over time could have contributed to the rising trend.
- dumb1224 3y agoI have to apologies it must be my commenting that you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog on Amnesty International website. I don't what's it to do with Amnesty Inter but my point being it is a stretch to conceptualise '法家' relating the so called 'Rule by law'. Obviously I didn't study law or philosophy but unless you're an expert in the area I doubt that it is an established main stream theory. Just because it's published by Harvard or Cambridge press isn't necessarily a guarantee of high quality research or unbiased reporting. I can easily find this book from Oxford which I consider garbage what typically we find in party education courses. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-and-economics-with-chinese-characteristics-9780199698547 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-and-economics-wi... >It's a live spreadsheet started in 2013. I mean if you regard it a lawless society in China then it's actually rather impressive, extrapolate by a factor of 1000 (if you want to estimate the 'iceberg') will give you 300,000 cases (assuming all true positives) out 1.4 billion over the course of 10 years. Again please don't twist my meaning.
- T-A 3y ago> you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog Ah, so your point wasn't > I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research ? Well then simply ignore the words "rule by law" and go read Xi Jinping's article. Or is he too insufficiently qualified to opine on China's governance?
- dumb1224 3y agoOK I won't say anything more about 'rule by law' since you couldn't get my point. My apologies for my poor commenting in English