This chapter focuses on the guiding case system, which is distinctive and cannot be simply explained by current case law theories. More specifically, it first explores the distinctiveness of the guiding case system in the specific context of China, as opposed to other types of case law in liberal democracies, then goes on to explain why the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has been able to expand its judicial lawmaking authority in the sense of being able to interpret the law through guiding cases. Furthermore, it illustrates that the Main Points of Adjudication (caipan yaodian), as a part of a guiding case, has essentially become a form of statutory interpretation that enables the SPC to independently perform a legislative function to a certain extent without routine surveillance by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC). This stands in contrast to the previous practice, where the SPC performed the legislative function merely through having it delegated by the NPCSC. It is further suggested that, under China’s authoritarian regime, the effectiveness of the SPC’s lawmaking function through the guiding case system depends largely on the extent to which the courts could be independent in the context of China.

This chapter explores the unique function and role of judicial documents – a significant form of informal state law, as distinguished from formal statutory laws – in China’s legislative enterprise. In particular, it examines why and how, with no explicit statutory delegation, the judicial lawmaking practice of producing judicial documents has become embedded in the adjudication of China’s courts. It accordingly proposes a twilight theory of China’s judicial documents that explains why the practice of judicial lawmaking through producing documents exists in a twilight zone between legal and illegal and is suitable for China’s politically resilient authoritarian regime. Moreover, it demonstrates how the judicial document can be referred to effectively by judges in adjudication. It further investigates the extent to which the judicial document has enabled the court, under the dual leadership of the superior court and the local Party committee, to efficiently and effectively respond to the subnational diversity and the differences of local politics.