This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Read the article before editing. I mentioned private property at the end already. Discussion of amendments go at the end. The title of the article goes first, not a mention of how the subject is ignored. --Jiang
Put in some (hopefully NPOV) information about the relation between the Constitution and the Party. Roadrunner 20:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This line confuses me: "The current revision was adopted by the National People's Congress on December 4, 1982 with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004."
Does the current revision date to 1982 or 2004? --Polynova 06:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
"Revision" should be changed to "version". They promulgated an entirely new constitution in 1982. They amended this specific constitution in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. --Jiang 07:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article, or at least the paragraph regarding the 2004 revisions, is extreamly biased and needs to be rewritten
Agreed, in order to draw attention to it I have stuck up a NPOV sticker, hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the subject will correct it. Sjerickson0702:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the paragraphs. The NPCSC isn't a rubber stamp as was illustrated by Sun Zhigang. Also, PRC courts do not have the general power to invalidate a legislative statute (neither do most French courts) but they can reverse individual decisions under that Administrative Procedures Act. Also, I'm not sure about the statement that PRC courts cannot reference the constitution in their decisions. It is true that violation of constitutional rights is not an independent basis of action in the PRC, but I don't know of any decision or order of the Supreme People's Court that forbids referencing the Constitution.
But with all candidates for these important positions shall be first submitted and granted by CPC, and financing for all these organs coming from CPC, it is impossible to keep the independence of these organs.
There isn't a formal requirement that candidates be approved by the CCP. Also financing doesn't come from the CCP.
Also, because the Communist Party has much control over the judicial system, they can ensure that Constitution rights cannot be used to protect people who are challenged by the State.
This needs to be expanded. There are cases in which the judicial system *has* been used to challenge the state (i.e. land seizures and migrant rights).
However, China has still not yet ratified the United Nations Agreements on Human Rights, leading to questions over how honest an attempt China is making towards protecting human rights.
This is factually incorrect. The PRC ratified the ICESCR in 1997 and the ICCPR in 1998.
Especially with recent years' booming economy, local governments are zealous in requisition of lands and houses by using force and without fair compensation, which raise great tension.
This needs to be connected with the main article better.
Also, according to the New York Times, "The constitutional changes of March, 2004 were unlikely to have any direct influence on the outcomes of court cases, said Chinese legal experts, because the courts here usually do not test laws and government decisions for fidelity to the Constitution."[1]
There needs to be a larger discussion of the mechanism of constitutional enforcement in the PRC.
The only exception was in 2001, in the Supreme People's Court's official reply given to ShandongHigher People's Court on the case of Qi Yuling, it first quoted the articles of constitution on education rights as base for judgement.
This was not an exception to the lack of judicial review, since the case did not attempt to strike down a statute.
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
Abot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "Taiwan" and "China" is the short form name of ROC and PRC respectively. Barring concerns that many contents of constitution consisted of either claim of "China" and "Taiwan", the name "Constitution of Taiwan" and "Constitution of China" already redirected to these two articles. So, it may be necessary to move those articles according to common name guidelines. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Though this appears to lean heavily to "Oppose", there is another related RM that has had more participation, so I wanted to put project notifications in here (as they are there) just to be safe. ASUKITE14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (to both moves only). I understand the complex situation of the two rival states, but there is consensus here to use the very common short names China and Taiwan rather than the formal, official names; it logically follows that the derived and related article (Economy of etc.) should do the same. It belongs to the lead section and to a short explanatory note to clarify what the official designation of the document is. If not, the other articles should be moved to PRC and RoC as well. And the bundle nomination is in order: it would be illogical to move one article and not the other. Keriluamox (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]