Wang Jianguo and Zhang Qianyi: The Jurisprudential Logic of Implementing Socialist Core Values in the Judiciary
Socialist core values [1] have permeated every level of social development, gradually becoming a source of emotional identification and a natural habit of behavior for the people. Following the release of the Plan for Integrating Socialist Core Values into Legislation and Revision of Laws to Build the Rule of Law by the CPC Central Committee, the practice of implementing socialist core values within the judicial sphere has progressed from top-level macro-policy design to the meso-level institutional construction of the legal system, finally culminating in the methodological construction of micro-level case adjudication. The construction and refinement of a nation’s legal system must be rooted in specific values; similarly, the execution of the law must integrate with the mainstream concepts of the era. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee emphasized the promotion of the spirit of socialist rule of law. As the concentrated expression of socialist core values in the realm of the rule of law, the spirit of socialist rule of law possesses distinct characteristics of modernity, or "time-boundedness" (shidaixing), scientific rigor, and practical orientation. Therefore, combining socialist core values with judicial adjudication is an inevitable requirement for the construction of socialist rule of law.
Judicial organs have continuously innovated and "discarded the old to bring forth the new" [2] regarding the issues of incorporating socialist core values into laws and regulations and integrating them into judicial adjudication. The Supreme People’s Court has successively released six batches of "Typical Cases on Promoting Socialist Core Values" (hereinafter "Typical Cases"), and the Supreme People's Procuratorate also issued the Typical Cases of Procuratorial Organs Dynamically Performing Their Duties to Promote the Integration of Socialist Core Values into the Construction of the Rule of Law (First Batch) in February 2024. As a set of value norms derived from moral concepts, socialist core values differ from legal rules in that they cannot be used directly as the major premise of legal reasoning. On the other hand, they also differ from legal principles; even under the prerequisite of exhausting all rules and possessing stronger reasons, they cannot be applied as the major premise. Since 2021, the academic community has conducted relatively comprehensive and systematic research on the implementation of integrating socialist core values into judicial adjudication. These studies can be roughly divided into three main categories: theoretical basic research [3], empirical research [4], and research on the basis and pathways of integration [5]. Existing research addresses the pathways, functions, and methods of this integration but has not systematically introduced concrete methods of argumentative reasoning, such as case-by-case comparison of similar cases. Reflecting on the argumentative logic of implementing socialist core values in current typical cases, there is a lack of specialized, systematic discourse on certain difficult issues, such as how to invoke specific value content from the socialist core values. In light of this, there is clear theoretical value for reflection and practical significance in reviewing the historical process of integrating socialist core values into judicial adjudication, conducting in-depth reflection on the practice of implementing these values in adjudication, analyzing the realistic difficulties encountered in judicial practice, refining and reconstructing the judicial reasoning system for implementing these values, and clarifying their role as "quasi-formal sources of law."
I. Scholarly Interpretation of the Establishment of the Status of Socialist Core Values as a Source of Law in Judicial Adjudication
Since the report of the 18th CPC National Congress first expounded the core concepts and specific connotations of socialist core values, the reports of the 19th and 20th CPC National Congresses, as well as the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, have all emphasized the comprehensive promotion of socialist core values across all fields of Chinese society and the guidance of the public in cultivating behavioral habits consistent with them. To better utilize the role of judicial trials in value guidance, the Supreme People's Court has introduced several policies to implement the integration of socialist core values into judicial adjudication. With the release and implementation of the Work Regulations for the Construction and Operation of the People's Court Case Database (hereinafter the Regulations) in May 2024, cases in the database containing "socialist core values" have gained a mandatory requirement of "ought to be referenced and invoked." Consequently, the status of socialist core values as a source of law has been clarified through judicial policy. The key to strengthening the interpretation and argumentation of socialist core values in judicial documents lies in constructing a value coherence mechanism between these values and adjudicatory activities. Achieving this goal requires, as a prerequisite, a systematic explanation of the normative hierarchy of the core values within judicial system design and their pathways for judicial application.
(1) Socialist Core Values as "Para-Legal Principle" Guiding Norms
In 2018, the Constitutional Amendment of the 13th National People's Congress made a normative adjustment to Article 24, Paragraph 2. Through a binary progression of the normative structure—establishing the constitutional advocacy status of socialist core values at the level of values while retaining the instructional function of traditional public morality clauses at the normative level—the process of incorporating core values into the Constitution was completed. The normative significance of this constitutional amendment is manifested as follows: in the dimension of the source of law, through the systematic embedding in the General Principles of the Constitution, socialist core values have attained a normative status within the framework of the "principle of the rule of law" in Article 5 of the Constitution. At the jurisprudential level, as a path for justifying them as foundational constitutional principles, they must be placed under Kelsen’s hierarchy of norms to undergo a dogmatic construction of their efficacy transmission mechanism. With socialist core values formally written into the Constitution as a fundamental component of the General Principles, they possess the formal source-of-law character of constitutional norms. The constitutional normative status of socialist core values differs from general constitutional articles: the former is a more comprehensive and overarching source of law, while the latter highlights and embodies the former in various sections of the constitutional text. The establishment of the constitutional normative hierarchy of socialist core values essentially stems from the composite nature of their normative character. This value system presents a dual structure at the level of legal philosophy: first, it forms a value integration function through the heterogeneous compatibility of value elements (such as the dialectical relationship between freedom and equality). Second, it builds normative dominance by relying on the centripetal force of core values (manifested in the axial status of "the rule of law" and "justice"). The constitutional normative system exhibits specific value-oriented characteristics at the structural level: most normative entries target specific value dimensions or normative fields, but the collaborative efficacy between them needs improvement. In contrast, socialist core values, as a foundational value integration mechanism, achieve the optimized reconstruction of the constitutional normative structure through the dual paths of systematic value orientation and normative coordination. They provide a high degree of generalization and coordination of the aforementioned principles and values, transcending the limitations of single principles or value categories, thereby establishing a universally applicable legal principle.
The "value-balancing paradigm" established in Article 7 of the Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Integration of Socialist Core Values into the Interpretation of Law and Reason in Judicial Documents can be deconstructed into a three-fold progressive jurisprudential logic. The first dimension is reflected at the level of normative efficacy; this clause establishes a hierarchical application sequence of "legal rules—legal principles—core values," positioning the core values as the ultimate benchmark for judicial value judgments. When case adjudication encounters conflicts between multiple values, the judge must follow an argumentative path of "priority to literal interpretation, supplementation by purposive interpretation, and value balancing as the final resort." While adhering to the bottom line of formal rule of law, this creates institutional space for open argumentation of substantive justice. This design breaks through the mechanical application of traditional judicial syllogism, turning instead to a jurisprudential mindset of dynamic balancing. In this sense, socialist core values not only transcend the specific provisions of sectoral laws but also establish the status of general legal principles. As a concrete expression of the constitutional order of values, they attain a superior position relative to specific legal principles within the system of legal sources. This superiority stems from the dual characteristics of this value system: first, through the value integration of dialectical relationships such as "freedom and order" or "efficiency and fairness," it forms a normative structure with inclusive tension. Second, by relying on the axial positioning of core values such as "the rule of law" and "justice," it constructs a hierarchical value sequence of "central radiation and peripheral coordination." This composite normative structure allows it to effectively coordinate normative conflicts caused by competing principles. Contemporary legislative techniques show a trend toward the systematic construction of value-oriented norms; by setting value-declaration clauses and foundational principles, they achieve dynamic adjustment to ethical demands and effectively alleviate the structural tension between rigid rule systems and social development. The normative construction of socialist core values—due to its dual capacity for value integration and institutional construction—deeply resonates with the primordial attributes, foundational positioning, and guiding functions of the system of legal principles. Together, they constitute a three-dimensional institutional framework of "value guidance—normative shaping—practical adjustment" in the modern rule of law system. As seen from the provisions of Article 7 of the Guiding Opinions, this clause constructs a flexible governance paradigm for the modern rule of law through a composite path of "teleological expansive interpretation" and "principled normative guidance." Its institutional design breaks the adjudicative pattern of traditional "rule-centrism," building a dynamic balance between normative stability and value adaptability. On one hand, it requires strict adherence to the explicit expression of legal texts and the bottom-line requirements of the formal rule of law; on the other, it authorizes the use of open interpretation of core values to respond to value shifts during social transformation. Judicial practice and interpretations by the courts further confirm the status of socialist core values as a general source of law.
(2) Socialist Core Values as a "Quasi-Formal Source of Law"
In judicial adjudication, socialist core values represent a fundamental norm that can become a formal source of law. From the perspective of legal interpretation, socialist core values provide an important value orientation. Given that the thematic terms of socialist core values—"prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, the rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendship"—all possess a degree of subjectivity and interpretability, judges must provide a clear explanation for their value choices when referencing and applying typical cases involving socialist core values. When judges face ambiguity, vagueness, or challenges of temporal adaptability in legal provisions, they often perform value judgments and interest balancing based on socialist core values to ensure that the results of legal interpretation both conform to the original intent of the legal text and reflect mainstream social values and principles of fairness and justice. At the same time, the reference and application of socialist core values in judicial documents is not absolute or exclusive; rather, a balance is chosen based on the specific circumstances of the case and the stage of social development. The judge, as the subject of balancing these values, gives priority to these values in the "reasoning" section of the judicial document and fully elucidates them, thereby ensuring the orderly combination of legal interpretation and the promotion of socialist core values. This process not only enhances the rationality and persuasiveness of legal interpretation but also promotes a dynamic response between law and social reality, helping to achieve the organic unity of legal and social effects.
At the legislative level, socialist core values likewise play an indispensable role. As an important component of legislative philosophy, they provide clear value guidance and moral leadership for law-making. When formulating and amending laws, legislative organs must fully consider the requirements of the socialist core values' connotations to ensure that legal content is consistent with mainstream social values, thereby safeguarding public interests, fairness, and justice. When laws such as the Civil Servant Law, the Archives Law, the Law on the Protection of Minors, the National Flag Law, the National Emblem Law, and the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency were revised, the phrase "socialist core values" was directly incorporated into the legal articles. Implementing socialist core values not only helps improve the scientific nature and rationality of the law but also enhances its authority and credibility, laying a solid foundation for the construction of a rule-of-law society. Furthermore, "socialist core values serve a guiding role in the formation of guiding cases. The direct citation or indirect embodiment of the specific content of socialist core values in guiding cases serves as a guide for individual judicial adjudications prior to the formation of the case." Consequently, socialist core values obtain the legal status of a "quasi-formal source of law."
(3) The Application of Socialist Core Values in Court Adjudication Must Be Combined with "Legal Rules"
In current judicial practice, the application of socialist core values generally exhibits the characteristics of supplementary argumentation...
In concrete case adjudication, judicial organs typically use legal rules as the benchmark for judgment while simultaneously utilizing the interpretation of Socialist Core Values to perform a function of "value reinforcement." This argumentative paradigm shares substantive similarities with the application mechanism of legal principles—both exist as supplementary argumentative resources within the normative system, strengthening the substantive legitimacy of the judgment conclusion through their value-oriented function. Accordingly, within the hierarchy of normative validity, Socialist Core Values should be positioned as an argumentative benchmark possessing supplementary status as a source of law.
Socialist Core Values represent a system of value concepts and ideology; their application possesses a degree of instability and the circumstances for their application remain relatively blurred. When introducing Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication, they should generally only be introduced in the "reasoning" (shuōlǐ) section of the judgment and not in the "legal basis" (yījù) section, so as to prevent the moralization of the grounds for judgment. The Several Opinions on Cultivating and Practicing Socialist Core Values in the Work of People's Courts (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions) also emphatically highlights that "judges should apply Socialist Core Values to interpret the law and provide reasoning under the prerequisite of legal norms." This clarifies that Socialist Core Values cannot substitute for or take precedence over legal norms as the basis for judgment; their primary role in the judicial decision-making process is an auxiliary interpretive function. Therefore, the application of Socialist Core Values should adhere to the judicial trial principle of "follow the law where it exists; follow custom where the law is silent; and follow legal theory (fǎlǐ) [6] and Socialist Core Values where custom is silent." Consequently, Socialist Core Values must be used in conjunction with explicit legal norms.
By comparison, the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), which came into effect on January 1, 2021, advocates for public order and good customs [7] and fairness and justice, which can be described as the legal bottom line of Socialist Core Values. The formulation of the Civil Code systematically integrated Socialist Core Values, focusing on the internal coordination of the normative system while ensuring the clarity and authority of legal norms. Judicial practice indicates that after the implementation of the Civil Code, the value-interpretation mechanism of judgment documents underwent a qualitative transformation: the precision and persuasiveness of judicial argumentation significantly increased, and the integrity of the reasoning structure was systematically strengthened. This shift not only realized the functional transformation of Socialist Core Values from a "value declaration" to an "adjudication benchmark" but also formed a systemic paradigm unifying value guidance and normative constraint through the construction of typological application standards and graduated balancing rules. Therefore, applying Socialist Core Values in the adjudication of civil and commercial cases requires full integration with the Civil Code and adherence to the principle of public order and good customs.
II. Empirical Patterns of Referencing in "Typical Cases" for the Judicial Implementation of Socialist Core Values
Through an empirical analysis of how judges cite Socialist Core Values in "typical cases" (diǎnxíng ànlì) [8], one can trace the specific conceptual principles used by judges to accurately grasp and lead the correct application of these values in judicial adjudication. As of now, among the six batches of typical cases released by the Supreme People's Court (SPC), three batches consist of "Typical Civil Cases." These six batches comprise a total of 64 typical cases, covering five major types of causes of action: civil, criminal, administrative, enforcement, and intellectual property. These typical cases are selected by the professional departments of the SPC based on certain standards and are products of appropriate editing and processing rather than the original judgment documents.
As shown in Table 1, the stylistic arrangement of the content structure varies across different batches of typical cases. Guiding cases that promote Socialist Core Values present a standardized system of structural element allocation, which can be deconstructed into a dual dimension of "formal requirements—substantive requirements." At the level of formal requirements, the "Title," "Basic Facts of the Case," and "Judgment Result" constitute a universal structural foundation. Among these, the "Judgment Result" strictly follows rules for normative citation, directly recording the content of the original trial's judgment document. At the level of substantive requirements, "Core Values" and "Typical Significance" serve as special elements handling value interpretation and demonstration. The former achieves value guidance through its placement before the title, while the latter utilizes substantive argumentation methods to reveal the case’s value for normative innovation and its efficacy for social governance. At the level of functional hierarchy, the "Judgment Result," as an objective normative element, more intuitively presents the original trial judge's capacity for normative cognition and practical transformation of Socialist Core Values compared to the subjective argumentative interpretation of "Typical Significance." The explicit expression of its argumentative logic provides an empirical analysis sample for researching the path choices and technical methods of value integration in judicial practice.
Table 1: Comparison of the Stylistic Structure of the Six Batches of Typical Cases Promoting Socialist Core Values
(1) The proportion of Socialist Core Values referenced in "typical cases" is gradually increasing In the first and second batches of typical cases, the "Judgment Result" section—excerpted from the original judgment documents—did not mention Socialist Core Values or specific core values. Only in the "Typical Significance" section was the case interpreted to excavate the value elements reflecting Socialist Core Values. For example, in Case 4 of Batch I, Case of Selling Goods with Counterfeit Registered Trademarks via WeChat Moments, the "Typical Significance" section argued that the case violated the value of integrity (chéngxìn). However, in Batch III, Case 1, Public Interest Litigation Case regarding the Reputation Rights of Heroes and Martyrs Dong存瑞 (Dǒng Cúnruì) and 黄继光 (Huáng Jìguāng), and Case 2, Public Interest Litigation Case regarding the Reputation Rights of Martyr 谢勇 (Xiè Yǒng) in Huai’an, Socialist Core Values were directly mentioned in the "Judgment Result" section.
In Batch IV, Case 6, Human Resources Dispute Case of a Certain Xinjiang University v. Xie, the "Judgment Result" mentioned honesty and credibility (chéngshí xìnyòng). In Batch V, Case 2, Health Rights Dispute Case of Liu v. Shi, the "Judgment Result" mentioned "legitimacy" and "justice"; Case 4, Visitation Rights Dispute Case of Sha v. Yuan, mentioned "harmony"; Case 5, Marriage Annulment Dispute Case of Zhou v. Fu, mentioned "freedom" and "civilization" [11]; Case 8, Sexual Harassment Liability Dispute Case of Wang v. Fu, mentioned Socialist Core Values [12]. The citation of typical cases has evolved from "invisible application" to direct frontal or lateral mentions. This indicates that as the CPC Central Committee’s requirements for integrating Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication have become clearer, and as judicial practice has evolved, original trial judgments have begun to place increasing importance on integrating Socialist Core Values for legal interpretation and reasoning, rather than relying solely on the SPC's interpretation.
(2) The legal interpretation function of Socialist Core Values in "typical cases" remains weak Among the 64 typical cases, only 13 mention Socialist Core Values or specific core values in the "Judgment Result" section. Despite this, whether Socialist Core Values directly guided the judge's decision in these 13 cases remains debatable. For instance, in Case 4 of Batch I, the sale of counterfeit goods via WeChat Moments violated the value of integrity. However, the key element for conviction was that "the defendant sold goods knowing they bore counterfeit registered trademarks, and the amount was relatively large, constituting the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks." This crime inherently violates the principle of honest business operations; the role of Socialist Core Values in the adjudication was not highlighted in the judgment document itself.
In Batch VI, Case 11, Service Contract Dispute Case of Wu v. a Shanghai Network Technology Co., Ltd., the court held that "Wu moved the leased object beyond the service boundaries set by the operator for unauthorized parking, which substantively constituted a breach of contractual obligations. Even if the user later moved the object back into the service area via a second QR code scan, in the absence of specific contract terms or explicit authorization from the operator, the liability for breach of contract is not exempted by subsequent remedial actions." In such contract disputes, any adjudication according to law reflects the value of honesty and credibility in Socialist Core Values. Whether or not those values are explicitly cited has no substantive impact on the factual determination or legal judgment of the individual case.
(3) Socialist Core Values have not intervened in substantive argumentation in "typical cases" Among the 13 typical cases where Socialist Core Values were cited for reasoning, three did not specify a particular value, stating only in general terms that the behavior deviated from the "basic requirements of Socialist Core Values." Even in the "Typical Significance" section—where the SPC demonstrates the educational significance of cases—general terms like "promoted," "reflected," "is conducive to," or "responded to" are frequently used. An analysis of these typical cases reveals several problems in substantive argumentation: first, they fail to clarify how specific guidance is provided for factual determination based on the specific circumstances of the case. Second, they fail to clarify how specific guidance is provided for legal argumentation based on specific legal provisions. Third, they fail to clarify how the legal interpretation of the 12 specific keywords of the Socialist Core Values [9] provides specific guidance. In summary, in current judicial practice, Socialist Core Values appear in judgment documents more as a political task or a "labeled" term. Despite the existence of six batches of typical cases, the lack of integration methods and substantive argumentation makes it difficult for these cases to exercise their intended role in guiding specific adjudications.
III. Analysis of Problems in Integrating Socialist Core Values into Judicial Adjudication
According to data collected from the China Judgments Online (Zhōngguó Cáipàn Wénshū Wǎng) database, 99% of the courts currently using Socialist Core Values for legal interpretation and reasoning are Primary People's Courts and Intermediate People's Courts. The causes of action involved are primarily civil cases, followed by criminal, administrative, enforcement, and state compensation cases, covering almost all types of litigation. Analysis of the "The Court Holds" (běnyuàn rènwéi) section shows that among civil cases, disputes involving contracts, negotiorum gestio (unauthorized management), and unjust enrichment are the most frequent, followed by personality rights, tort liability, marriage and family, inheritance, and property rights disputes. Within the current court system—especially after the issuance of the Guiding Opinions—the citation of Socialist Core Values in judgment documents has seen an explosive increase, reaching more than 11 times the volume of the previous year. Viewed comprehensively, the problems existing in judgment documents involving Socialist Core Values can be summarized in the following three areas:
(1) Unclear boundaries between Socialist Core Values and moral ethics There is a tendency in judicial practice to simply equate the legal connotation of Socialist Core Values with moral and ethical connotations when integrating them into judgment documents. Socialist Core Values fuse traditional moral concepts with modern judicial ideas; however, their connotations and extensions differ when viewed through an ethical-moral lens versus a legal lens. Each specific value concept has a specific meaning at the ethical-moral level. Some judgments simply equate the legal meaning of Socialist Core Values with their ethical meaning, as seen in the Case of Land Contract Management Right Transfer Contract Dispute between Xu Fenglan, Ren Zhenjiang, et al. ...
① The "Reasoning of the Court" section of the judicial written judgment explicitly states: "Regarding the issue of whether Ren Zhenjiang’s lawsuit exceeded the statute of limitations period... [N1]" Confusing the civil moral standards of "patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendship" within the Socialist Core Values with the normative efficacy of legal principles actually constitutes a displacement of conceptual hierarchy. Specifically, integrity, as a basic principle of civil law (Article 7 of the Civil Code), possesses normative binding force, whereas other values belonging to the moral category possess only an advocacy function. The adjudicating organ failed to categorize and distinguish value norms according to the theory of the hierarchy of legal sources, leading to moral evaluation substituting for legal judgment. This essentially dissolves the original institutional intent of integrating the Core Values into the judiciary—namely, achieving value guidance through techniques of legal interpretation rather than allowing moral admonition to usurp normative logic. Furthermore, the legal connotations of the Socialist Core Values are applied either as a superior concept to, or alongside, their moral and ethical connotations. In some court judgments, although a distinction is made between the Socialist Core Values and traditional Chinese virtues, the legal connotations of each value element within the Socialist Core Values are not clarified. Consequently, in certain judgment documents, the Socialist Core Values are used as a superior concept to traditional Chinese virtues, while in others, they are used alongside them in parallel; such usage frequently causes conceptual confusion. In the case of Gansu Ronghua Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Zhongcheng Leasing Co., Ltd. regarding a Guarantee Contract Dispute, it was pointed out: "The principles of honesty, credit, and equality proposed by the Socialist Core Values put forward common and equal requirements for all civil subjects in social life. After signing the contract, Zhongcheng Leasing Company, considering the actual difficulties of Gansu Ronghua Company and acting on the principle of honesty and credit, performed all its contractual obligations as agreed. However, Gansu Ronghua Company is now attempting to evade its responsibility by refusing to bear its due obligations on the grounds of 'lack of corporate resolution.' The inconsistent behavior [N2] of Gansu Ronghua Company precisely violates the principles of equality, honesty, and credit within the Socialist Core Values." Civil law principles include the principle of honesty and credit (bona fides), the principle of public order and good customs, and the principle of fair adjudication, which themselves align with the core elements (the 12 keywords [N3]) of the Socialist Core Values. In cases where legal principles are applied as the major premise, the Socialist Core Values are regarded as a value existence possessing national coercive force that stands above traditional morality and ethics. Judicial power is the key to ensuring the realization of the Socialist Core Values, and the independence, impartiality, and fairness of judicial adjudication are the fundamentals through which this safeguard is realized. Merely relying on a mention of the concept of "Socialist Core Values" in a judgment document cannot fully satisfy the public's reasonable expectations for judicial justice. Because it does not specifically distinguish the relationship between the overlapping parts of traditional Chinese virtues and the Socialist Core Values, simply conflating the concepts of the two in judicial practice will inevitably affect the consistency of judicial adjudication, and by extension, its fairness and accuracy.
(2) Extensive use of Socialist Core Values keywords to substitute for specific legal rules
The Socialist Core Values have already begun to play the role of a "quasi-formal source of law" in judicial practice, yet their judicial application still primarily relies on the subjectivity of judges. Formally, the Socialist Core Values cannot directly adopt the application rules governing legal rules and principles; procedurally, it has not been clarified how or when to apply them, or how to choose and balance them if they conflict with legal rules or principles. Consequently, in the subjective stage of judicial application, if a judge fails to correctly cite legal rules and instead directly chooses to apply the Socialist Core Values, they may break the statutory application methods of legal rules and principles. This leads directly to the problem of "rule evasion," where statutory rules are not applied. Through searches on China Judgements Online [N4], many cases can be found that cite the Socialist Core Values as the basis for adjudication. However, in these judgment documents, judges seem reluctant to seek out legal rules, instead focusing excessively on moral and ethical discourse, using the Socialist Core Values for reasoning, explanation, and adjudication without distinction—even substituting the Socialist Core Values for legal rules to decide cases. For example, in the maintenance dispute between Shi X, Sun X, and Shi Y et al. heard by the People’s Court of Qianguo’erluosi Mongol Autonomous County, Jilin Province [N5], the judge clearly pointed out in the judgment that the two plaintiffs had lost the ability to work, and the five defendants, as children, had the responsibility and obligation to fulfill their legally prescribed duty of maintenance. Failure to perform these statutory obligations not only violates legal provisions but also contravenes social morality; it conforms neither to the law nor to human sentiment [N6], and is further contrary to the Socialist Core Values. In this written judgment, despite the existence of clear legal rules, the judge did not cite Article 14 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, but instead adjudicated based on the Socialist Core Values. Such practice may cause confusion in the application of law. On the other hand, using them as reasons for legal interpretation without demonstration affects the integrity of the adjudication. For instance, a case in the Case Database of the People's Courts [N7], A Lathe Processing Department in West Ujimqin Banner v. Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of West Ujimqin Banner regarding Work-Related Injury Insurance Qualification, directly denied the existence of an obligatory assistance relationship on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of the Socialist Core Values [N8]. Whether or not the obligatory assistance relationship was established in that case directly determined whether the defendant should bear liability for compensation.
(3) "Label-style" invocation of Socialist Core Values keywords
To better clarify the distinction of reasoning content in judgment documents, the Opinions [N9] divide it into two parts: "basis for adjudication" and "basis for reasoning." Among these, the "basis for adjudication" mainly refers to the citation of legal rules, judicial interpretations, and legal principles. The "basis for reasoning" generally refers to other norms that explain or support rules, such as policies, morality, precepts, and value concepts. According to the Opinions, the purpose of integrating the Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication should be to assist in legal interpretation and enhance the persuasiveness of argumentation. The Socialist Core Values cover the three dimensions of the state, society, and the citizen. In such cases, some judgment documents directly list the words "Socialist Core Values" in a "label-style" citation of the phrase without providing reasoning in connection with the case. For example, the case A Certain US Company, A Certain Yueyang Company et al. regarding Infringement of Invention Patent Rights [N10] stated: "Even if the implementation of the Civil Code is taken as the boundary, according to the provisions on beneficial retroactivity in Article 2 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Temporal Effect of the Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, applying the provisions on punitive damages to continuous infringements occurring before January 1, 2021, is more conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects, more conducive to maintaining the socialist market economy system, and more conducive to promoting the Socialist Core Values." Merely mentioning the phrase "Socialist Core Values" at the end in the form of a label violates the true legal significance of applying the Socialist Core Values. The in-depth analysis of 64 guiding cases in six batches in the second part of this article found that the current role of the Socialist Core Values in judgment documents is mainly to enhance argumentation, while their contribution to legal interpretation is relatively small. On one hand, among the 64 typical cases, only twenty percent mention the Socialist Core Values or core values in the "result of adjudication" section. Explaining the connotation of the Socialist Core Values and clarifying their relationship with the specific legal rules applied are both found in the "Typical Significance" interpretation section of the Supreme People's Court; the original intent of the judge in the judgment document was not clarified in the original judgment. On the other hand, ordinary cases on China Judgements Online mostly consist of "label-style" partial mentions; in practice, the perfect integration of value concepts and objective legal provisions has not been achieved. For example, in the case Tian v. Yang regarding a Dispute over the Right to Life, Health, and Body found in the Case Database of the People's Courts, the bases for adjudication were all legal rules, but the reasoning section stated: "Promoting the Socialist Core Values is the legislative purpose of the civil law. Judicial trials should support and encourage behaviors that protect the ecological environment and maintain social public interests in accordance with the law, so as to promote the Socialist Core Values." During the adjudication process, judges should conduct reasoning, define the nature of the case, and conclude issues according to legal provisions, ensuring the accurate application of legal rules. When using the Socialist Core Values as a basis for adjudication, their interconnection and coordinated relationship with legal rules should be reflected.
IV. Path Selection for the Judicial Implementation and Integration of Socialist Core Values into Adjudication
Data from China Judgements Online shows that after reaching a peak in application in 2021, the overall numbers declined in 2022. The invocation of Socialist Core Values by judges in the process of case argumentation and adjudication is gradually becoming more mature and standardized. The integration of Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication cannot be a simple symbolic integration; rather, it should participate in substantive fact-finding and legal judgment, as well as in legal interpretation and legal reasoning, intervening in substantive argumentation. To a certain extent, the Socialist Core Values represent a sublimation and clarification of the values inherent in existing legal rules and principles. Incorporating the Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication activities and introducing their value-integration function essentially reflects a paradigm innovation in the mechanism of judicial collaborative governance. This mechanism expands the functions of the rule of law through three dimensions: first, constructing a channel for condensing normative consensus and promoting rational dialogue among diverse values within judicial procedures; second, improving the path for shaping public policy and promoting the dynamic adjustment between legal norms and social development; and third, strengthening the reproduction mechanism of institutional justice to realize a benign interaction between individual case adjudication and social governance.
The practical demands of the rule of law during a period of social transformation endow the Core Values with a special normative tension: their ethical dimension possesses characteristics of dynamic adjustment, capable of responding in a timely manner to governance challenges brought by technological innovation and shifting values; meanwhile, the inherent pursuit of stability in the legal system forms necessary institutional constraints at the normative level. This dialectical relationship between normative flexibility and institutional rigidity allows the Core Values to exert the active advantage of value guidance in judicial governance while maintaining the internal unity of the legal system. In practice, as a kind of moral code, although the Socialist Core Values have already attained the status of a "quasi-formal source of law," they cannot be cited directly to participate in legal reasoning with the same clarity as legal rules, nor can they serve directly as the basis for adjudication like legal principles such as public order and good customs, due to the relative ambiguity and abstraction of their connotations and the richness of their value elements. Therefore, on the premise of ensuring the active advantage of the Socialist Core Values, the moral and ethical connotations of the 12 keywords contained within them must be transformed into legal terminology for integration into judicial adjudication. This cannot be done through a simple, abstractly generalized method of explaining the connotations of various core values; rather, a case-guidance method should be adopted. The reasoning for the judgment of a precedent serves the function of justifying the application to similar cases; it provides not only a substantive standard for determining whether the precedent and the case to be decided are similar cases but also prepares the warranting reasons for the formation and application of rules for similar cases.
(1) Clear rules of application should be established for integrating Socialist Core Values into judicial adjudication
The implementation of Socialist Core Values in judicial adjudication requires the concretization of rules. To prevent the arbitrary and subjective application of the Socialist Core Values, they cannot be applied in isolation from legal rules or principles. However, there remains a certain distance between the Socialist Core Values and legal rules or principles. Therefore, the implementation of Socialist Core Values in judicial adjudication requires the concretization of rules or principles—that is, transforming the keywords of the Core Values into specific...
"Behavioral motivation + specific behavioral patterns." On one hand, behavioral motivation cannot be applied in isolation from specific behavioral patterns. As a set of moral and ethical terms, the 12 keywords of the socialist core values only indicate specific "behavioral motivations." For example, in Case 2 of the fifth batch of typical cases, Liu v. Shi (Dispute over Right to Health), the core value is "civility." This merely points out that the behavioral motivation, or the value objective, is "civility"; it cannot independently determine the definition of the legal relationship. It further requires a "specific behavioral pattern"—that is, the completion of a specific act under the guidance of said "behavioral motivation." In the aforementioned Case 2, Shi implemented a good-faith dissuasion of Liu’s interference with the normal operation of a public transit vehicle for the purpose of maintaining public transportation safety and order. The legitimacy of his subjective motivation and the appropriateness of his behavioral method were judicially confirmed. Through the interpretation of this specific case, the adjudicating organ established a triple exemplary significance at the normative level: first, it established a behavioral paradigm for civilized travel, providing guidance for public participation in social governance; second, it affirmed the legality of good-faith dissuasion, clarifying the reasonable boundaries for the exercise of citizens' rights; finally, it strengthened the normative protection of public transportation safety and order, achieving a dynamic balance between individual freedom and the public interest. Through a composite argumentative path of "behavioral guidance – value confirmation – maintenance of order," the summary of this judgment highlights the normative connotations of the "civility" [20] and "rule of law" dimensions within the socialist core values. In short, the concretization of integrating socialist core values into judicial adjudication rules requires that, after clarifying the keyword (behavioral motivation), one must elucidate what "specific behavioral pattern" should be adopted. On the other hand, there must be an essential and inevitable connection between the behavioral motivation and the specific behavioral pattern. This essential connection must satisfy three conditions: First, there must be a substantive correlation between the motivation and the behavior. That is, the specific behavior must contribute to the substantive realization of the "behavioral motivation," regardless of whether realization is actually achieved or to what extent it aids the objective (as seen in Cases 2 and 13 of the sixth batch mentioned above). Second, back-inference from the behavior must not deviate from the motivation. That is, the specific behavior is a necessary condition for the realization of the "behavioral motivation"; although it need not be a sufficient condition, common-sense reasoning must not lead to a conclusion that directly contradicts the "behavioral motivation." Finally, it must comply with the principle of appropriateness. Back-inference from a behavior might not produce only the single result expected by the "behavioral motivation," but other results should remain within an appropriate range. For instance, although "acting bravely for a just cause" [21] and friendly mutual assistance are advocated by the socialist core values, if an act of "bravely acting for a just cause" is improper and leads to excessive damage, it may still constitute excessive defense or excessive emergency avoidance.
(2) Integrating Socialist Core Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Follow Normative Procedures
Judges must not treat the socialist core values as a "panacea" for all ills; they must comply with procedural norms during application. To truly apply the adjudicator's discretionary power to the judicial outcome, one must not only "provide reasoning" (shuoli) but also "interpret the law" (shifa). When applying socialist core values in judicial adjudication, judges should not use the general expression "core values" but should instead combine the specific circumstances, the facts of the case, and the basis of the judgment (specific legal provisions) to conduct detailed argumentation using one or several specific keywords from the socialist core values. This avoids randomness and partiality in the integration of values into adjudication. In this process, it is necessary to standardize the logical relationship between legal rules, legal principles, and socialist core values within the evidentiary and argumentative procedure.
First, regarding the determination of the facts of the case: the 12 keywords should be used in conjunction with specific circumstances to interpret the "behavioral motivation" of the specific case, and this motivation should be interpreted using methods of legal interpretation. Specific keywords are used to reason and determine the legality and relevance of evidence. Second, regarding the legitimacy argumentation for legal rules: where clear legal rules exist, keywords should be used to argue for the fusion of legal rules with "common sense and reason" (qingli) [22] and "the logic of the matter" (shili), thereby enhancing the legitimacy and reasonableness of the application of the rules and increasing the acceptability of the conclusion. Where clear legal rules are absent, judges should interpret the internal logic of the legal norms themselves based on the case facts, excavating the inherent requirements of the socialist core values contained therein. Specific keywords serve as the justification for the selection of legal rules. Finally, regarding the selection and balancing of legal principles: when rules are exhausted, keywords are used to interpret the case motivation and argue for a "stronger reason" to select or discard principles with lower compatibility; the dialectical relationship between various values and the case facts is interpreted to determine the priority among legal principles, using socialist core values as a weighing factor for legal values in the interpretation and reasoning process.
(3) Integrating Socialist Core Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Follow Rules for "Keyword" Selection
Legal reasoning is a practical-rational action carried out by adjudicators in judicial practice, which must be based on corresponding judicial reasons. When determining reasons, interpreting motives, and selecting keywords, judges must follow corresponding rules. Based on the distribution of the socialist core value keywords across the three levels of the individual, society, and the state, the "behavioral motivation" (keyword) should be matched from the bottom up based on the actor's specific individual actions. First, the selection of keywords should proceed from the lower to the higher level. Legal reasoning must be based on case facts, using legal interpretation, legal reasoning, and logical subsumption to determine legal facts. In short, case facts are the logical starting point. Keywords should first be selected from the individual citizen level—"patriotism, dedication, integrity, friendship"—serving as the "behavioral motivation" for value judgments, evidence certification, and the determination of legal facts. If none at the individual level are appropriate, one may then select from the social level keywords: "freedom, equality, justice, the rule of law." Similarly, if none at the social level fit, keywords from the state level—"prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony"—are selected for interpretation and reasoning, thereby reducing randomness and subjectivity. Second, the selection of keywords may cross levels. In judicial practice, keywords rarely exist in isolation; besides "patriotism" and "civility," "civility and harmony" often appear alongside the "rule of law" and "integrity," while the "rule of law" often appears with "dedication," "harmony" with "friendship," and "equality and justice" with "integrity." Finally, selection must follow the principle of gradient ascent. A specific case first involves "specific behavior"; adjudication must first judge this individual behavior, and only then ascend to the impact on the social or state levels. Thus, the integration should follow a gradient from "individual – society – state," ascending level by level from "micro – meso – macro." This constructs a legal-rights [23] connection between the citizen and the state within a modernized horizon.
(4) Integrating Socialist Core Values Should Reconstruct the Reasoning System
According to the traditional rules of the judicial syllogism, as long as "legal rules + case facts" are described in the form of "major premise + minor premise," a reliable conclusion can be reached under the rules of deductive logic. Clearly, the traditional syllogism has certain flaws in terms of completeness, reliability, and systemic perfection. Unlike formal logic, which deals with textual correlations between premises and conclusions, legal application deals with substantive inferences involving natural language and case materials. It requires making substantive assertions about premises and conclusions, which exceeds the scope of formal logic. The judicial implementation of socialist core values intervenes in the deductive process using "keywords" as new premises, reconstructing the "deductive syllogism" into a "recursive four-part [24]" reasoning model. Compared to traditional argumentation, the recursive four-part model retains case facts as an independent premise while replacing the minor premise of the traditional syllogism with a recursive attribution to a new premise. For example, in Case 9 of the fifth batch, Shen v. Hu and Deng (Labor Dispute), the traditional syllogism would be: Major premise: Wages should be paid in legal tender. Minor premise: The company paid wages in virtual currency. Conclusion: The payment in virtual currency is invalid, and RMB should be paid. However, the minor premise ("the company paid in virtual currency") is inconsistent with the major premise ("wages should be paid in legal tender") and cannot be directly derived through deductive logic. Therefore, the minor premise is recursed into "Minor Premise 1," plus an intervening new premise, "Minor Premise 2": Virtual currency is not legal tender; payment in virtual currency does not comply with regulations; the act is invalid. Only then can the conclusion be smoothly reached. This case uses "integrity" from the socialist core values as "Minor Premise 2" to intervene in reasoning to argue that "virtual currency" is not "legal tender," and then uses "rule of law" to argue that the act is illegal. Furthermore, when citing typical cases in judicial application, besides following rules of process and selection, one must emphasize the comparison between typical cases and "Minor Premise 2" in the specific case to intervene in substantive reasoning. By following the gradient of "individual-society-state" and reconstructing the system through a "recursive four-part model + case comparison," one achieves coherence and integrity in judicial reasoning.
Conclusion
The integration of socialist core values into judicial adjudication is a process in which they participate as internal reasons in legal reasoning and conclusions. State-level promotion confers an inherent political authority and social recognition upon these values. Their use in legal reasoning increases the legitimacy, persuasiveness, and acceptability of judgments. Supported by the national political system, the number of judicial documents citing these values has grown exponentially. However, using "socialist core values" for reasoning in a vague manner, or even directly replacing laws and regulations, impacts the stability, integrity, and authority of legal norms. Optimizing the path for implementing these values in adjudication is not only a procedural issue for enhancing fairness but a fundamental institutional guarantee for the realization of the rule of law. A complete methodological strategy can prevent uncertainty and disorder in the selection of keywords while enhancing the reliability and stability of judicial reasoning. By continuously refining case databases and reconstructing the methodological system, one can ensure substantive justice through procedural justice, actively exercising judicial functions to provide theoretical support and practical evidence for the realization of socialist legal modernization.
Source: Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), Issue 6, 2025. Editor: Huihui.