144 Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol.20 This Article is the first full-length analysis in English of education liti- gation in China and one of the first studies of judicial innovation by Chi- nese courts.In Part I,I map the development of education law in China, delineating the shift from an emphasis on ideology at the end of the Cul- tural Revolution to the creation of a system based on legal rules and statu- tory rights. In Part II,I analyze the series of cases in which the courts began to take a more active role in adjudicating rights claims based on the new legal frame- work,despite the lack of a clear legal mandate to do so.These court deci- sions-including the 1999 Tian Yong case,9 the 2000 Lin Yanwen case,0 and the 2001 Oi Yuling case1-show the courts developing new legal doc- trines to better respond to the needs of individual citizens. In conclusion,I argue that the Chinese government should encourage the greater use of innovative legal techniques by Chinese courts,particularly through measures that strengthen judicial autonomy.Courts with greater institutional authority and autonomy will be able to expand their use of innovative approaches to adjudication and resolve the legal disputes of liti- gants who formerly would not have had access to the judicial system.As such,in the words of one Chinese judge,some courts might be poised to become "courageous explorers"12 of a more dynamic and innovative ap- proach to the development of the rule of law in China. 9.The Tian Yong case was the first administrative litigation case in which a university was brought to court as a defendant.See infra Part II(B).As will be discussed in more detail below,the extension of jurisdiction in administrative litigation cases was controversial because schools were generally consid- ered to be "social service organizations,"and therefore not eligible to be sued under the ALL.The case was also noteworthy in that it marked the first time that a Chinese court asserted a due process right for an individual litigant-specifically,the right to notice and a hearing-in the absence of a clear legisla- tive basis for doing so.For an English-language translation of the Supreme Poople's Court Gazette version of the Tian Yong decision,see Case 1.Administrative Proceeding:Tian Yong v.University of Science and Technology,Beijing for Refusing to Issue Certificate of Graduation and Degree,CHINESE EDuC.Soc'Y, May/June 2006,at 65. 10.The Lim Yawwen case followed on the heels of the Tian Yong case,and was initially tried by the same Beijing court that issued the decision in the Tian Yong case.Se infra Part II(C).In Li Yamen,the court once again asserted jurisdiction over a university in an administrative litigation dispute,and also relied on the individual's due process rights in reaching a decision.The court's decision in favor of the plaintiff was later vacated on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim had expired,raising concerns of political interference.For the full text of all eight court documents issued in the Li Yamen case,see GAODENG JIAOYU YU XINGZHENG SUSONG [HIGHER EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION], supra note 1,at 499-540. 11.For an English translation of the opinion in the Qi Yuling case,see Qi Yuling v.Chen Xiaoqi et al.:Opinion by the Higber People's Court of Shandong Province,CHINESE EDUC.SoC'Y,July/Aug.2006,at 60-74. 12.Liu Yuenan Ju Xiaoxiong.Chaoyue lilun zbengyi be xianxing zhidu juxian de sbijian:Guangzbou shi liangji fayuan caipan xuesheng su gaoxiao xingzbeng anjian de sbizbeng yanjin [Transcending Tbeoretical Debates and Curvent Practice Within Institutional Limits:Researcb on Concrete Evidence from Adjudication of Administrative Lat Cases of Students Suing Universities in Guangzhou City Courts],in DAXUE ZvZH,ZuLu YU TALU [UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY,SELF-REGULATION AND EXTERNAL DISCIPLINE]206,217 (Zhan Zhongle ed.,2006).Liu and Ju,who are identified as the Chief Judge in the Administrative Division of the Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court and a Guangzhou City Panyu District People's Court research office official,respectively,make a strong case for a more active approach to judicial decision making:\\server05\productn\H\HLH\20\HLH2001.txt unknown Seq: 4 12-JUN-07 16:27 144 Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 20 This Article is the first full-length analysis in English of education liti￾gation in China and one of the first studies of judicial innovation by Chi￾nese courts. In Part I, I map the development of education law in China, delineating the shift from an emphasis on ideology at the end of the Cul￾tural Revolution to the creation of a system based on legal rules and statu￾tory rights. In Part II, I analyze the series of cases in which the courts began to take a more active role in adjudicating rights claims based on the new legal frame￾work, despite the lack of a clear legal mandate to do so. These court deci￾sions—including the 1999 Tian Yong case,9 the 2000 Liu Yanwen case,10 and the 2001 Qi Yuling case11—show the courts developing new legal doc￾trines to better respond to the needs of individual citizens. In conclusion, I argue that the Chinese government should encourage the greater use of innovative legal techniques by Chinese courts, particularly through measures that strengthen judicial autonomy. Courts with greater institutional authority and autonomy will be able to expand their use of innovative approaches to adjudication and resolve the legal disputes of liti￾gants who formerly would not have had access to the judicial system. As such, in the words of one Chinese judge, some courts might be poised to become “courageous explorers”12 of a more dynamic and innovative ap￾proach to the development of the rule of law in China. 9. The Tian Yong case was the first administrative litigation case in which a university was brought to court as a defendant. See infra Part II(B). As will be discussed in more detail below, the extension of jurisdiction in administrative litigation cases was controversial because schools were generally consid￾ered to be “social service organizations,” and therefore not eligible to be sued under the ALL. The case was also noteworthy in that it marked the first time that a Chinese court asserted a due process right for an individual litigant—specifically, the right to notice and a hearing—in the absence of a clear legisla￾tive basis for doing so. For an English-language translation of the Supreme People’s Court Gazette version of the Tian Yong decision, see Case 1. Administrative Proceeding: Tian Yong v. University of Science and Technology, Beijing for Refusing to Issue Certificate of Graduation and Degree, CHINESE EDUC. & SOC’Y, May/June 2006, at 65. 10. The Liu Yanwen case followed on the heels of the Tian Yong case, and was initially tried by the same Beijing court that issued the decision in the Tian Yong case. See infra Part II(C). In Liu Yanwen, the court once again asserted jurisdiction over a university in an administrative litigation dispute, and also relied on the individual’s due process rights in reaching a decision. The court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff was later vacated on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claim had expired, raising concerns of political interference. For the full text of all eight court documents issued in the Liu Yanwen case, see GAODENG JIAOYU YU XINGZHENG SUSONG [HIGHER EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION], supra note 1, at 499–540. R 11. For an English translation of the opinion in the Qi Yuling case, see Qi Yuling v. Chen Xiaoqi et al.: Opinion by the Higher People’s Court of Shandong Province, CHINESE EDUC. & SOC’Y, July/Aug. 2006, at 60–74. 12. Liu Yuenan & Ju Xiaoxiong, Chaoyue lilun zhengyi he xianxing zhidu juxian de shijian: Guangzhou shi liangji fayuan caipan xuesheng su gaoxiao xingzheng anjian de shizheng yanjiu [Transcending Theoretical Debates and Current Practice Within Institutional Limits: Research on Concrete Evidence from Adjudication of Administrative Law Cases of Students Suing Universities in Guangzhou City Courts], in DAXUE ZIZHI, ZILU YU TALU [UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY, SELF-REGULATION AND EXTERNAL DISCIPLINE] 206, 217 (Zhan Zhongle ed., 2006). Liu and Ju, who are identified as the Chief Judge in the Administrative Division of the Guangzhou City Intermediate People’s Court and a Guangzhou City Panyu District People’s Court research office official, respectively, make a strong case for a more active approach to judicial decision making: