论文部分内容阅读
Kim Lee， a former English teacher from Miami， Florida， was long known to English learners in China as the wife of Li Yang. Li achieved fame for creating an unorthodox method of learning English he branded“Crazy English，” which featured shouting English the top of one’s lungs. He founded his own company in the 1990s and went on to take Lee as his bride in 2005.
The couple met in China in 1999 when Lee came to the country as a member of a Miami teachers’ union on a research trip. Later， Lee joined the Crazy English team and embraced a lifestyle of being greeted by frenzied crowds who were swept up in the hope of transforming their lives by learning English.
However， Lee became a household name overnight as “a folk hero for China’s battered wives” on August 30， 2011， when she uploaded photos of her injuries to the Internet and went public with her husband’s abuse. Next to pictures showing severe bruises on her head and knees， she wrote down details of domestic violence that happened to her.
Lee filed for a divorce in October 2011 at a Beijing court， drawing headlines and tens of thousands of online comments. Most people expressed sympathy for Lee while condemning her husband， who later admitted his wrongdoings to the media.
On February 3， 2013， Lee was granted a divorce on the grounds of domestic violence.
Lee received full custody of her three daughters. In addition to child support， Li was ordered to pay 12 million yuan （$2 million） worth of assets to Lee and a further 50，000 yuan （$8，200） in compensation for psychological trauma caused to Lee during the abusive marriage. The court also issued a three-month restraining order barring Li from beating or threatening Lee. After Li failed to pay his ex-wife her share of the family property within three months after their divorce， as was ruled by the court， Lee filed for compulsory enforcement of court decisions on June 20， 2013， after the expiration of the restraining order. Lee told Law& Life magazine that her ex-husband retaliated by sending her abusive and threatening text messages the next day. Lee filed for a second restraining order against her ex-husband on September 16， 2013. Neither Lee nor her at- torney commented on the status of the second restraining order when contacted by Beijing Review.
Stopping abuse
Though they have been in existence for more than six years， civil protection orders are a relatively new concept in China.
The first such order in the country was issued by a court in Wuxi City， east China’s Jiangsu Province， on August 6， 2008， to protect a wife who had been beaten up by her husband repeatedly. Just under two weeks earlier， on July 22， the woman applied to the court for both a divorce and an injunction against her husband to be effective during divorce proceedings. She used photos of her injuries， medical records and a testimony by a local women’s federation as evidence. Her husband denied none of the accusations. The court granted the wife a three-month restraining order and the couple divorced two weeks later.
In March 2008， before the Wuxi case， the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence under the Supreme People’s Court， China’s highest judicial body， issued the Handbook on Marriage Cases Involving Domestic Violence for judges hearing marital cases， which contained descriptions of how judges can issue civil protection orders to provide protection for victims of domestic violence.
Immediately after the handbook came out， the Supreme People’s Court launched a pilot program， authorizing nine county- and districtlevel courts to issue civil protection orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence in marital cases on the basis of the handbook. By the end of 2010， the number of courts participating in the program had risen to 82. In addition， the higher people’s courts in Hunan， Jiangsu and Guangdong provinces also launched pilot programs within their jurisdictions.
According to an article published in Law & Life， a total of more than 200 civil protection orders had been granted by courts in China by the end of 2012 and only four had been disobeyed， which showed the effectiveness of protection orders in safeguarding victims. Landmark cases included the first order to protect a domestic violence victim from a non-marital partner in September 2012 and the first order to protect a male domestic violence victim and his parents in June 2010.
However， the handbook is not a legal document， and it is not binding on judges. As a result， several provincial higher people’s courts had issued regulations regarding the issuance of civil protection orders in marital cases that cite extracts from the handbook. These regulations are legally binding in their jurisdictions.
The amended Civil Procedure Law， which took effect on January 1， 2013， is the first Chinese law to provide a legal basis for the issuance of civil protection orders.
Article 100 of the law states that when a party’s actions or other factors may hinder a judgment’s execution or cause harm to another party， the court， upon application from the victim， can issue an order to preserve the victim’s assets and order the party responsible to carry out or refrain from carrying out certain acts. When no application is filed， the court can still order preservation measures when necessary. During emergent situations， the court should rule within 48 hours after receiving an application and preservation measures should become effective immediately. The clause on “preservation actions” provides a more direct legal basis for judges to issue protection orders. Based on the new law， the court could issue an injunction even when nobody seeks it.
On January 11， 2013， a court in Zhuhai City， Guangdong， granted a protection order for a woman against her husband who beat her for seeking a divorce， the first such order in China based on Article 100 of the amended Civil Procedure Law. The court granted the wife the order the day she applied， barring the husband from beating， threatening， stalking or harassing her.
Many legal experts believe that the introduction of civil protection orders is legislative preparation for the drafting of an anti-domestic violence law in China.
Legal framework
As early as December 2001， the Supreme People’s Court issued a guidance on how judges should handle marital cases involving allegations of domestic violence， including a definition of family violence， in a judicial interpretation regarding the Marriage Law， which was amended in April of the year.
However， according to a survey among district- and county-level courts conducted by the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence in 2007， though domestic violence allegedly existed in up to 62 percent of divorce cases tried by these courts， they had only identified domestic violence in less than 8 percent of the lawsuits since the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation was issued. The institute attributed this phenomenon to the lack of detailed measures for implementing regulations against domestic violence in the Marriage Law.
In July 2008， the All-China Women’s Federation， the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and five central government departments jointly issued the first national policy paper on domestic violence in China， describing the responsibility of the government in addressing domestic violence and the need for collaboration between government agencies to provide support and protection.
For years， domestic violence campaigners and gender law scholars in China have been calling for legislation on domestic violence. According to a legislative work plan published in 2012 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress， China’s top legislature， a law against domestic violence will be promulgated by 2015.
“According to the current laws and regulations， a civil protection order must be filed as part of litigation， which scares domestic violence victims who don’t want a divorce yet and narrows the scope of its application，”said Li Mingshun， Vice President of China Women’s University， in an interview with Legal Weekly.
Li， also a scholar on marriage law， strongly advocates the drafting of legislation preventing domestic violence based on the grounds that as a comprehensive social issue， domestic violence cannot be fully covered by any other law， such as the Marriage Law or Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests. “An anti-domestic violence law is the most effective weapon to address this problem，” he said.
The couple met in China in 1999 when Lee came to the country as a member of a Miami teachers’ union on a research trip. Later， Lee joined the Crazy English team and embraced a lifestyle of being greeted by frenzied crowds who were swept up in the hope of transforming their lives by learning English.
However， Lee became a household name overnight as “a folk hero for China’s battered wives” on August 30， 2011， when she uploaded photos of her injuries to the Internet and went public with her husband’s abuse. Next to pictures showing severe bruises on her head and knees， she wrote down details of domestic violence that happened to her.
Lee filed for a divorce in October 2011 at a Beijing court， drawing headlines and tens of thousands of online comments. Most people expressed sympathy for Lee while condemning her husband， who later admitted his wrongdoings to the media.
On February 3， 2013， Lee was granted a divorce on the grounds of domestic violence.
Lee received full custody of her three daughters. In addition to child support， Li was ordered to pay 12 million yuan （$2 million） worth of assets to Lee and a further 50，000 yuan （$8，200） in compensation for psychological trauma caused to Lee during the abusive marriage. The court also issued a three-month restraining order barring Li from beating or threatening Lee. After Li failed to pay his ex-wife her share of the family property within three months after their divorce， as was ruled by the court， Lee filed for compulsory enforcement of court decisions on June 20， 2013， after the expiration of the restraining order. Lee told Law& Life magazine that her ex-husband retaliated by sending her abusive and threatening text messages the next day. Lee filed for a second restraining order against her ex-husband on September 16， 2013. Neither Lee nor her at- torney commented on the status of the second restraining order when contacted by Beijing Review.
Stopping abuse
Though they have been in existence for more than six years， civil protection orders are a relatively new concept in China.
The first such order in the country was issued by a court in Wuxi City， east China’s Jiangsu Province， on August 6， 2008， to protect a wife who had been beaten up by her husband repeatedly. Just under two weeks earlier， on July 22， the woman applied to the court for both a divorce and an injunction against her husband to be effective during divorce proceedings. She used photos of her injuries， medical records and a testimony by a local women’s federation as evidence. Her husband denied none of the accusations. The court granted the wife a three-month restraining order and the couple divorced two weeks later.
In March 2008， before the Wuxi case， the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence under the Supreme People’s Court， China’s highest judicial body， issued the Handbook on Marriage Cases Involving Domestic Violence for judges hearing marital cases， which contained descriptions of how judges can issue civil protection orders to provide protection for victims of domestic violence.
Immediately after the handbook came out， the Supreme People’s Court launched a pilot program， authorizing nine county- and districtlevel courts to issue civil protection orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence in marital cases on the basis of the handbook. By the end of 2010， the number of courts participating in the program had risen to 82. In addition， the higher people’s courts in Hunan， Jiangsu and Guangdong provinces also launched pilot programs within their jurisdictions.
According to an article published in Law & Life， a total of more than 200 civil protection orders had been granted by courts in China by the end of 2012 and only four had been disobeyed， which showed the effectiveness of protection orders in safeguarding victims. Landmark cases included the first order to protect a domestic violence victim from a non-marital partner in September 2012 and the first order to protect a male domestic violence victim and his parents in June 2010.
However， the handbook is not a legal document， and it is not binding on judges. As a result， several provincial higher people’s courts had issued regulations regarding the issuance of civil protection orders in marital cases that cite extracts from the handbook. These regulations are legally binding in their jurisdictions.
The amended Civil Procedure Law， which took effect on January 1， 2013， is the first Chinese law to provide a legal basis for the issuance of civil protection orders.
Article 100 of the law states that when a party’s actions or other factors may hinder a judgment’s execution or cause harm to another party， the court， upon application from the victim， can issue an order to preserve the victim’s assets and order the party responsible to carry out or refrain from carrying out certain acts. When no application is filed， the court can still order preservation measures when necessary. During emergent situations， the court should rule within 48 hours after receiving an application and preservation measures should become effective immediately. The clause on “preservation actions” provides a more direct legal basis for judges to issue protection orders. Based on the new law， the court could issue an injunction even when nobody seeks it.
On January 11， 2013， a court in Zhuhai City， Guangdong， granted a protection order for a woman against her husband who beat her for seeking a divorce， the first such order in China based on Article 100 of the amended Civil Procedure Law. The court granted the wife the order the day she applied， barring the husband from beating， threatening， stalking or harassing her.
Many legal experts believe that the introduction of civil protection orders is legislative preparation for the drafting of an anti-domestic violence law in China.
Legal framework
As early as December 2001， the Supreme People’s Court issued a guidance on how judges should handle marital cases involving allegations of domestic violence， including a definition of family violence， in a judicial interpretation regarding the Marriage Law， which was amended in April of the year.
However， according to a survey among district- and county-level courts conducted by the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence in 2007， though domestic violence allegedly existed in up to 62 percent of divorce cases tried by these courts， they had only identified domestic violence in less than 8 percent of the lawsuits since the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation was issued. The institute attributed this phenomenon to the lack of detailed measures for implementing regulations against domestic violence in the Marriage Law.
In July 2008， the All-China Women’s Federation， the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and five central government departments jointly issued the first national policy paper on domestic violence in China， describing the responsibility of the government in addressing domestic violence and the need for collaboration between government agencies to provide support and protection.
For years， domestic violence campaigners and gender law scholars in China have been calling for legislation on domestic violence. According to a legislative work plan published in 2012 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress， China’s top legislature， a law against domestic violence will be promulgated by 2015.
“According to the current laws and regulations， a civil protection order must be filed as part of litigation， which scares domestic violence victims who don’t want a divorce yet and narrows the scope of its application，”said Li Mingshun， Vice President of China Women’s University， in an interview with Legal Weekly.
Li， also a scholar on marriage law， strongly advocates the drafting of legislation preventing domestic violence based on the grounds that as a comprehensive social issue， domestic violence cannot be fully covered by any other law， such as the Marriage Law or Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests. “An anti-domestic violence law is the most effective weapon to address this problem，” he said.