Right Conflicts and Institutional Balance in Access to Litigation Archives

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614110

Author(s)

Jiayue Qin

Affiliation(s)

School of law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Abstract

The system for accessing litigation archives is undergoing a critical transition from a "management-oriented" to a "rights-oriented" paradigm. This transition has triggered profound rights conflicts: on one hand, the public interest embodied in judicial openness—such as the right to know and the right to supervise; on the other hand, the individual rights of litigation participants—such as personal dignity and the right to informational self-determination. These rights collide intensely within the medium of litigation archives, forming a complex pattern of rights conflicts. This paper delves into the jurisprudential dimension, first clarifying the nature and normative foundations of the right to know and the right to privacy, revealing that they are not simply oppositional but involve a dynamic balance of legal interests. Applying Larenz's theory of interest balancing and Alexy's principle of proportionality, this paper constructs a "three-level analytical framework" for rights conflicts: definition of the scope of rights, assessment of the degree of interference, and review of justifications. Based on this framework, the paper conducts a jurisprudential examination of China's current system, revealing deep-seated issues such as "normative ambiguity", "procedural deficiencies," and "illusory remedies." Drawing on Germany's theory of "informational self-determination", the U.S. standard of "reasonable expectation of privacy", and Japan's legislative technique of "differentiated disclosure", this paper proposes a balancing mechanism centered on the principle of proportionality: establishing the legitimacy of "openness as the rule" at the purpose level; achieving "layered and classified" refined disclosure at the means level; and constructing a closed-loop system for "rights remedies" at the procedural level. Ultimately, the system for accessing litigation archives should evolve from "institutional balance" to "jurisprudential integration," safeguarding the public's right to know while profoundly respecting personal dignity.

Keywords

Litigation Archives; Judicial Openness; Right to Know; Right to Privacy; Conflict of Rights

References

[1]Li Yuanqing. On the Methods of Classification, Numbering, and Arrangement of Litigation Archives in Grassroots People's Courts. Zhejiang Archives, 1988(1): 18. [2]Du Guijun. Several Understandings on the Utilization of Litigation Archives in People's Courts. Archives and Construction, 2004(1): 32-35. [3]Gao Yifei. New Developments in Judicial Openness in the United States in the Digital Age. Academic Forum, 2010(5): 78-82. [4]Yan Yansheng. A Brief Analysis on the Disclosure of Litigation Archives. Archives Science Study, 2015(4): 56-60. [5]Sun Yongjun. Public Access to Court Records: Current Situation, Comparison, and Construction. Journal of Nanjing Tech University (Social Science Edition), 2015(3): 40-48. [6]Xia Qunpei, Peng Junbo. Litigation Archive Management and Judicial Openness: From the Court to Society—From the Perspective of Public Demand. Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law, 2013(6): 94-98. [7]Wang Zejian. Personality Rights Law: Legal Dogmatics, Comparative Law, and Case Studies. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2013: 45-47. [8]Chen Ruihua. Visible Justice. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2000: 102-105. [9]Zhang Xinbao. The Legal Protection of Privacy Rights. Beijing: Qunzhong Publishing House, 2004: 78-80. [10]Zhou Hanhua. Personal Information Protection Law (Expert Suggestion Draft) and Legislative Research Report. Beijing: Law Press, 2006: 112-115. [11][Germany] Karl Larenz. Methodology of Law. Translated by Chen Ai'e. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003: 310-315. [12][Germany] Robert Alexy. Law, Reason, and Discourse: Studies in Legal Philosophy. Translated by Zhu Guang and Lei Lei. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2011: 188-192. [13]Xie Youping, Wan Yi. Principles of Criminal Procedure Law: The Cornerstone of Procedural Justice. Beijing: Law Press, 2005: 134-137. [14]Matthew D. Bunker, Reconciling Fair Trials and a Free Press, Mahwah,New Jersey, 1997:56-58. [15][Japan] Yu Katsuya. Information Disclosure Law and Personal Information Protection Law. Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing, 2012: 202-205. [16]Joseph Jaconelli, Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial, Oxford University Press, 2002:88-92. [17]Jiang Huiling. Theoretical Issues on Judicial Openness. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2012: 67-69. [18]Shen Deyong, Jing Hanchao. An Overview of Judicial Openness Norms. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2012: 234-237. [19]Wei Jianping, Gao Zhongwei. Shanghai: Achieving Cross-Court Access to Electronic Litigation Archives. People's Court Daily, 2010-04-01 (p. 1). [20]Zhou Hanhua. The U.S. Government Information Disclosure System. Global Law Review, 2002(3): 45-48. [21]Gao Yifei. Fundamental Principles of Judicial Openness. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2012: 156-159.