bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

As mainland authorities stress the rule of law, one logical step they could take immediately is to have faith in the courts and let them do their job. 
 That would mean allowing civil disputes to be resolved through the courts whenever possible, especially when  there are many plaintiffs.
Many on the mainland were excited when the concept of 'public interest litigation' was finally introduced in new draft amendments to the Civil Procedure Law released for public consultation last month. Citizens or organisations can presently only bring lawsuits when they are parties whose interests have been harmed - private interest litigation. 
The draft amendments  would allow 'concerned government units' and 'social organisations' to bring lawsuits on issues such as environmental pollution or  infringement of consumer rights. 
This is a big step forward because the authorities have traditionally frowned on collective actions. 
Even though the Civil Procedure Law provides for 'joint litigation' when multiple plaintiffs are suing the same defendant in relation to the same wrongful act, in reality it is allowed only very rarely. 
Several veteran consumer rights lawyers say that, in their experience, courts have only ever accepted lawsuits by consumers with common grievances individually. The most recent lawsuits brought by shareholders against household electronics mogul Wong  Kwong-yu  were only allowed to proceed as separate cases. 
 Cases that are considered politically sensitive are not accepted by the courts at all. Only a handful of lawsuits brought against milk powder manufacturers by the families of infants who fell ill after drinking melamine-tainted milk formula in 2008 were accepted by the courts, and none of them proceeded to trial. 
Local authorities also put pressure on lawyers to dissuade them from representing such litigants.
Likewise, after most major transport or safety accidents, the families of victims are asked to sign compensation deals brokered by the government, waiving their rights to bring lawsuits. 
The most recent high-profile example was the high-speed train crash in Wenzhou in July.
However, some mainland legal experts and rights activists have warned that allowing public interest litigation does not necessarily signal more acceptance of collective litigation, or class action. The draft amendments say public interest litigation can only be brought by 'concerned government units' or 'social organisations'. Given that non-government organisations are still tightly regulated on the mainland, this definition in essence rules out grass-roots organisations and activists.
Even environmental issues, where the government has  shown support for public interest litigation on a trial basis, are not necessarily smooth sailing for litigants. 
Since the oil spill in the Bohai Sea in June, many lawyers have tried to lodge lawsuits on behalf of affected fishermen against Conoco Philips and China National Offshore Oil Corp, but not one case has been formally accepted by mainland courts. 
The State Oceanic Administration, which said it would shoulder the responsibility of taking legal action, has not taken any.
 Government-brokered compensation deals are often rushed into and incapable of fully considering the long-term needs of individual victims. Judicial authority is further weakened every time the courts appear to be acting in accordance with the administration's wishes by refusing to accept valid lawsuits.
 Last month, the Legal Daily published a story warning about so-called professional 'fake goods' litigants, who made money by suing big supermarkets for compensation over fake or sub-standard products. The article questioned whether such professional litigants should be treated as consumers and be entitled to compensation.
However, abuses of the legal system are challenges faced by every jurisdiction. 
At the end of the day, the focus should be more on whether there is merit to the case, and less on who is bringing the lawsuit, especially on the mainland, where there is a huge imbalance in the power of citizens and corporations and where litigation is time-consuming and expensive, barring many from the court process.
There are also other ways to limit abuses, such as making a vexatious litigant pay the defendant's legal fees, or even face penalties in limited circumstances. 
Some law experts have suggested that such provisions be included in the draft Civil Procedure Law amendments.
Recognising public interest litigation is a welcome first step, especially if the final version of the Civil Procedure Law allows individuals and grass-roots organisations to be litigants. 
More important, however, is that the authorities must realise that allowing citizens to use the judicial process as much as possible  is necessary to create an orderly channel for resolving social disputes and maintaining social stability.



Let public defend their own interests