ABSTRACT
In this regard, Potter (2001, 11) agrees that Chinese laws are intentionally ambiguous and are replete with vague passages that do not lend predicability or transparency to the regulatory process; but he believes that this is a consequence of legal instrumentalism prevailing in China that gives policy makers and officials significant flexibility in legislative interpretation and implementation. In contrast, Peerenboom (2002, 251) submits that there may be many reasons for generality and vagueness in Chinese law, pointing specifically to the following reasons: many of China’s laws are modelled after the laws of civil law countries, which are typically more general and broadly drafted than statutes in common law countries; China is a vast country undergoing profound changes, so broadly drafted laws and regulations allow sufficient flexibility in implementation to meet local conditions. He also suggests that the traditional emphasis on particularised justice characteristic of the Confucian tradition and the socialist emphasis on uniting practice and theory combined with the pragmatic orientation of current leaders all favour laws that are statements of general principles that must then be interpreted and applied to particular situations by local officials and administrators (Keller 2002, 251). Regardless of the reasons, such excessive generality and vagueness often undermine the predicability and certainty of Chinese law.
