ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the most significant judicial practice of the SPC from a functionalist standpoint. It was found that the SPC not only performs as the highest-level adjudicative organ and hears cases as the court of last resort but is also devoted to developing two judicial mechanisms as vital functional supplements to its adjudicative authority: promulgating normative judicial interpretations and regularly releasing a selection of guiding cases in response to either incomplete or imperfect law in practice. Evidence presented in this chapter suggests that the SPC has become an increasingly vital adjudicator and developer of law based on its own institutional interests and pragmatically extended its impact beyond individual cases through a series of procedural reforms, institutional restructuring, and the informatization of the adjudication work. Regardless of the controversy as reflected in the SPC’s quasi-legislative interpretative power and a case-based approach to unify the application of the law, the judicial practice of the SPC to enrich and expand its jurisdiction will continue to evolve within certain tolerance zones, and the future legal development of the SPC is likely to draw on multiple sources and continue to reflect conflicting interests.
