How Legal Research Can Serve the Building of a Higher-Level Socialist Country Under the Rule of Law

General Secretary Xi Jinping’s letter to the Ninth National Congress of the China Law Society fully reflects the affirmation and care for the China Law Society as a bridge, bond, and think tank for the Chinese legal community, and also sets forth clearer requirements and goals for legal research, which deserve our serious theoretical summarization and refinement.

习近平总书记致信中国法学会第九次全国会员代表大会，充分体现了对中国法学会作为中国法学法律界桥梁、纽带和智库的肯定和关爱，也对法学研究提出了更明确的要求和目标，值得我们在学理上认真总结和提炼。

“Actively engaging in the great practice of law-based governance in all respects” is arguably the inevitable requirement of legal research. The cause of rule of law is itself a “theory-immanent” practice, a rational activity that relies on theoretical reasoning rather than coercive force for argumentation and legitimation. Serving the “building of a higher-level socialist country under the rule of law” must be premised on legal research’s accurate assessment of practical circumstances, profound understanding of practical issues, and repeated summarization of practical phenomena. Legal research needs to complete the “conceptual abstraction and theoretical typification of experience” in the process of observing and participating in practice, constructing a rational cognitive order and normative order amidst complex and diverse experiences.

“积极投身全面依法治国伟大实践”可以说是法学研究的必然要求。法治事业本身就是“理论内置型”的实践，是靠学理、而不是强制力来论证和正当化的理性活动。服务“建设更高水平的社会主义法治国家”必然要以法学研究对实践形势的准确判断、对实践话题的深刻理解、对实践现象的反复总结为前提。法学研究需要在观察和参与实践的过程中完成对“经验的概念抽象化和理论定型”，在纷繁复杂的经验中建构理性的认知秩序和规范秩序。

When criticizing Rudolf Stammler’s legal thought, Max Weber pointed out that legal science, as a social science, possesses its scientific character precisely in its ability to accurately determine the “adequate causation” of legal practice in long-term experience and history, thereby providing “reference for value choices” for the empirical world through normative and doctrinal research, achieving the effect that theory provides “potential causal impetus” for practical development. Therefore, whether Chinese legal research possesses “practical sense” and “judgment,” whether it can form an overall problem-consciousness of law-based governance in all respects at the macro level and continuously propose explanatory conceptual categories, principles, and doctrines at the micro level, thereby shaping, guiding, and regulating practice itself — this is the key to whether Chinese legal research has the character of social science. Different historical periods present different overarching theoretical backgrounds and practical contexts for socialist countries under the rule of law. What constitutes a “higher-level socialist country under the rule of law”? This major judgment requires us to have rational acumen to grasp the current practical background of law-based governance in all respects as a whole, so as to establish an overarching theoretical framework. Otherwise, legal research may commit the error of “anachronism,” simply raising questions generated in past historical stages, or forcedly setting foreign problems and their corresponding conclusions as our own agenda. This article argues that the “higher-level socialist country under the rule of law” that current legal research should serve has five basic practical characteristics, which constitute the most fundamental framework, problem list, and theoretical premise for legal research.

马克斯·韦伯在批评斯塔姆勒的法学思想时谈到，法学作为社会科学，其科学品性就在于它能在长时段的经验和历史里准确判断法律实践的“适当的起因造成”，从而通过规范性和教义性的研究为经验性世界提供“价值抉择的参考”，实现理论为实践发展提供“潜在的因果推动力”之效应。因此，中国法学研究有没有“实践感”和“判断力”，能不能从宏观上形成全面依法治国的总体问题意识，并从微观上不断提出有解释力的概念范畴、原理原则，进而形塑、引导和规范实践本身，这是中国法学研究是否具有社会科学品性的关键。不同历史时期，社会主义法治国家面临的总体理论背景和实践形势是不同的。什么是“更高水平的社会主义法治国家”，这个重大判断需要我们有理性的敏锐力，在整体上把握当前全面依法治国的实践背景，从而建立起整体性的理论框架。否则，法学研究就有可能犯“时空错置”的错误，简单提出过去历史阶段产生的问题，或牵强附会将外国的问题及相应结论设定为我们自己的清单。本文认为，当前法学研究要服务的“更高水平的社会主义法治国家”有五个基本实践特点，构成了法学研究最基础的框架结构、问题清单和学理前提。

First, the ideological atmosphere that “law-based governance in all respects is a profound revolution in national governance” has basically taken shape. Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law [1]1 Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law is a component, as the fundamental guidance and action guide for law-based governance in all respects, has gained deep popular support. The integrated construction of a law-based state, law-based government, and law-based society has formed a high degree of consensus. The ideological soil of rule-of-law awareness, procedural awareness, and evidentiary awareness in the state and society is increasingly enriched, and the social atmosphere of explicit opposition to or contempt for the rule of law has basically been eliminated. Those exercising public power are increasingly aware of the risks of violating the rule of law. Therefore, the focus of today’s legal research is not on “ideological reconstruction” or “value assessment,” but on discovering new deep-seated shortcomings. Today’s legal researchers must see the imbalance in the development of the rule of law and the insufficiency of its supply, and need to establish a balanced and adequate view of the rule of law. At present, different institutions and organizations of varying sizes and functions hold different attitudes toward the rule of law; different social relations and social life have different demands for the rule of law; differences in economic and social development levels lead to imbalances in rule-of-law development; and the supply of rule of law may be insufficient due to differences in social conditions. Hence, how to advance legal research with a focus on the balance, adequacy, and effectiveness of the rule of law is the key for legal research to serve the building of a higher-level socialist country under the rule of law.

一是“全面依法治国是国家治理的一场深刻革命”的思想氛围基本形成。习近平法治思想作为全面依法治国的根本遵循和行动指南深入人心。法治国家、法治政府、法治社会一体建设形成了高度共识。国家和社会的规则意识、程序意识、证据意识的思想土壤日益厚植，明确反对法治、轻视法治的社会氛围基本消除，公权力行使者对于违反法治的风险意识日益提高。因此，今天的法学研究重点不在于“思想重建”和“价值评估”，而在于发现新的深层次短板。今天的法学研究者要看到法治发展的不均衡性、法治供给的不充分性，需要建立均衡而充分的法治观。当前，不同规模和职能的机构、组织对待法治的态度不同，不同社会关系和社会生活对法治的需求不同，经济社会发展水平差异会导致法治发展不均衡，法治供给会因社会条件差异而出现不足。因此，如何以法治的均衡性、充分性、有效性为重点来推进法学研究，是法学研究服务建设更高水平的社会主义法治国家的关键所在。

Second, the institutional atmosphere of promoting the modernization of national governance through law-based governance in all respects is increasingly taking shape. The overall goal and main lever is to build a system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, and the pattern of advancing the legalization of all aspects of national work has basically been established. At present, Party and government organs at all levels act in accordance with the law, using a scientific, complete, and standardized legal system to plan work, promote development, prevent risks, and resolve conflicts, achieving standardization and normalization in the performance of their duties. However, legal researchers need to recognize that there are still cases where work is not carried out using rule-of-law thinking and methods. Faced with erroneous views such as “if you follow the law, you cannot get things done; if you get things done, you did not follow the law” and “the rule of law is important when talking about it, but ignored when busy,” theoretical responses are needed. For an ultra-large-scale country that seeks to use law to achieve “remote governance” and manage an increasingly complex and risky community, it is always necessary to theoretically respond to the issue of “unity and flexibility.” Especially at the micro level, legal researchers need to propose regulatory theoretical solutions to phenomena such as using law to solidify local or departmental interests, undermining the unity of the rule of law, making flexible adjustments or watering down the law [2], mechanically interpreting the law, and selectively applying the law.

二是通过全面依法治国推动国家治理现代化的制度氛围日益形成。要以建设中国特色社会主义法治体系为总目标、总抓手，推动国家各方面工作法治化的格局基本形成。当前，我国各级党政机关依法办事，通过科学完备规范的法律制度体系来谋划工作、推动发展、预防风险、化解矛盾，实现了履职尽责的标准化、规范化。但法学研究者需要看到，在实践中仍然存在少数不依靠法治思维和法治方式来开展工作的情况，面对“依法办不成事、办成事不依法”“对待法治说起来重要、忙起来不要”这些错误认识，需要在理论上加以回应。对于一个超大规模的国家，想运用法律来实现“远程的治理”，管理一个越来越复杂和充满风险的共同体，始终需要在理论上回应“统一性和灵活性”的问题。尤其在微观领域，法学研究者要对利用法律来固化地方利益、部门利益，破坏法治统一，搞变通、放水，机械理解法律，选择性适用法律等现象，提出规制的学理方案。

Third, the practical atmosphere of fully safeguarding the rights and interests of the people and adjusting social relations through law-based governance in all respects is increasingly taking shape. Currently, with the improvement of the public service system for the rule of law, the practical atmosphere of using the rule of law to protect legitimate rights and interests and adjust social relations is increasingly forming. The people’s awareness of and channels for respecting, studying, abiding by, and using the law are becoming stronger and more complete. However, legal researchers need to see that in the current construction of a law-based society, there is also a phenomenon of overemphasizing “rights consciousness” while neglecting “rules consciousness,” emphasizing “the rule of law’s guarantee of outcomes” while neglecting “the rule of law’s emphasis on procedures.” The social foundation of “trusting petitions rather than the law, trusting the internet rather than the law, trusting noise-making rather than the law” [3] still exists, and the underlying logic of an acquaintance society, a human-relationship society, and a guanxi society [4] has not fundamentally changed. How the rule of law can provide a guarantee for establishing a defense mechanism against collective psychological shocks [5] is a completely new and major issue in current theoretical research. Collective social psychology is a stable and enduring psychological cognition and public emotion formed over a long period in a society. Whether it can withstand external environmental shocks affects both the overall stability of society and the psychology and actions of every individual within it. China’s huge population, vast territory, and complex customs and traditions intensify and amplify the force and uncertainty of such shocks. The rule of law needs to maintain a generally harmonious, united, and stable collective social psychology while ensuring that it itself does not become a source of shocks. Establishing a defense mechanism against collective psychological shocks is the cornerstone of the “great unification” system [6] under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and also the fundamental solution to resolving social conflicts. Objectively speaking, it is normal for the collective social psychology of a whole society to be shocked in modern states. Issues of interest distribution brought about by macro-policy environments, issues of rights, obligations, and responsibility disposal brought about by meso-level law enforcement and judicial management, and issues of resolving conflicts and disputes brought about by micro-level grassroots society all impact and differentiate the overall social psychology. Therefore, the state must establish an overall shock defense mechanism through legal means to hedge against corresponding effects, and establish long-term, normalized prevention, guidance, and balancing mechanisms. Only in this way can long-term peace and stability be achieved.

三是通过全面依法治国充分保障人民群众权益、调整社会关系的实践氛围日益形成。当前，随着法治公共服务体系的健全，通过法治来保障合法权益、调整社会关系的实践氛围日益形成。人民群众尊法、学法、守法、用法的意识和途径日益强烈和完善。但法学研究者要看到，当前的法治社会建设中也存在过于强调“权利意识”忽视“规则意识”的现象，强调“法治对结果的担保”忽视“法治对程序的强调”，信访不信法、信网不信法、信闹不信法的社会基础仍然存在，熟人社会、人情社会、关系社会的底层逻辑没有发生根本转变。法治如何为建立全社会共同心理冲击防御机制提供保障，是当前理论研究中一个全新而重大的课题。社会共同心理是一个社会长期形成的稳定而持久的心理认知和公共情绪。它能否抵御外部环境冲击，既关系社会整体稳定，也关系身处其中每一个人的心理和行动。中国人口规模巨大、地域广阔、风俗民情复杂，又加剧和放大了这种冲击的力度和不确定性。法治需要维护整体上和谐团结稳定的社会共同心理，同时确保它本身不构成冲击的策源地。建立社会共同心理冲击防御机制是中国共产党领导下的“大一统”体制的基石，也是化解社会矛盾的治本之策。客观来看，全社会共同心理受到冲击在现代国家是正常的。宏观政策环境带来的利益分配问题，中观执法司法管理带来的权利义务责任处置问题，微观基层社会带来的矛盾纠纷化解问题，都会给整体的社会心理带来冲击和分化。因此，国家必须通过法律手段建立起整体的冲击防御机制，对冲相应效果，建立长效、常态的预防、引导和平衡机制，如此才能实现长治久安。

Fourth, the atmosphere of innovation that continuously promotes comprehensive deepening of reform through the improvement of the rule-of-law field itself is increasingly taking shape. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [7], comprehensively deepening reform in the rule-of-law field has become a high degree of consensus. Chinese legal research must theoretically summarize various forms of rule-of-law reform, so as to provide sufficient theoretical support for further deepening reform. In practice, rule-of-law reform includes the following specific modes: holistic restructuring, such as the comprehensive supporting reform of the judicial system; creative cultivation, such as the establishment of the Central Committee for Comprehensive Law-Based Governance in the field of Party and state institutions; inclusive reform, such as legally promoting the development of new quality productive forces represented by platform and digital economies; integrated optimization, such as the reform of the Party and state supervision system and the enactment of the Supervision Law; and gradual improvement, such as actively and steadily advancing constitutional review and record review [8]. Theoretically, we need to further study which rule-of-law fields are suitable for which reform modes. Specifically, questions such as how to evaluate the effects of reforms and whether existing reforms fully conform to laws need to be deeply studied by the Chinese legal academia today.

四是通过法治领域自身的完善不断推动全面深化改革的创新氛围日益形成。党的十八大以来，全面深化法治领域的改革成为高度共识。我国法学研究要在学理上认真总结法治改革的各种形式，从而为进一步深化改革提供充分的理论支撑。实践中，法治改革包括以下几种具体方式：整体性重构，例如司法体制综合配套改革；创造性培育，例如在党和国家机构领域组建中央全面依法治国委员会；包容性改革，例如在法律上促进平台和数字经济为代表的新质生产力发展；集成性优化，例如党和国家监察体制改革，制定监察法；渐进性完善，例如积极稳妥推进合宪性审查和备案审查。在学理上，我们需要进一步研究哪些法治领域适合哪种改革方式。具体而言，改革的效果如何评估，既有改革是否完全符合规律等问题，都需要今天中国法学界深入研究。

Fifth, the atmosphere of promoting law-based governance in all respects by coordinating both domestic and international situations is increasingly taking shape in the foreign-related field [9]. At present, China has achieved great progress in advancing law-based governance in all respects from the twin dimensions of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law [10]. The state has provided strong legal guarantees at all links of legislation, law enforcement, and adjudication to defend sovereignty, security, and core interests. However, from the perspective of current legal research, our theoretical construction and response capacity regarding basic theoretical issues and emerging frontier issues of foreign-related rule of law are still insufficient. At the level of basic principles, it is necessary to systematically refine the conceptual categories of foreign-related rule of law; in the fields of sovereignty theory and state law theory, to deeply study the remote regulation and interference of extraterritorial rules on the domestic country under a large spatial order, breaking through geographical and physical space limitations, and to reconsider what “territory” and “territorial integrity” mean in the Constitution and laws. At the level of institutional research, it is necessary to study the interactions and interrelations among China’s various departments and fields of foreign-related laws on the basis of the Law on Foreign Relations, analyzing the legal structures and judicial application issues therein. In particular, regarding how to prevent foreign laws from interfering with China’s relevant standards, actions, and interests, in-depth theoretical research is needed to explore the establishment of an analysis and control mechanism for foreign-related legal risks covering the entire process of legislation, law enforcement, and adjudication.

五是统筹国内和国际两个大局推进全面依法治国的涉外氛围日益形成。当前，我国统筹国内法治与涉外法治两个维度来推进全面依法治国建设取得了巨大成就，国家在立法、执法、司法等各个环节为捍卫主权、安全和核心利益提供了强大的法治保障。但从当前的法学研究来看，针对涉外法治的基础理论问题和新兴前沿问题，我们的理论建构和回应能力仍然不足。在基础原理层面，需要系统提炼涉外法治的概念范畴，在主权理论、国家法理论领域，深入研究大空间秩序下域外规则对本国的远程规制和干扰，突破地理物理空间的限制，重新理解什么是宪法和法律中的“领土”和“领土完整”。在制度研究层面，需要以《对外关系法》为基础，研究当前中国各部门、各领域涉外法律之间的互动和关联关系，分析其中的法律构造和司法适用问题。尤其是，针对如何防止国外法律对我国相关标准、行为、利益进行干涉，需要在学理上深入研究，探索建立起包括立法、执法、司法全过程的涉外法律风险分析与控制机制。

(The author is Vice Dean and Professor of the Law School of Renmin University of China.)

（作者系中国人民大学法学院副院长、教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧