When Are There More Laws? When Do They Matter? Using Game Theory to Compare Laws, Power Distribution, and Legal Environments in the United States and China

By Li, Ji | Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, March 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

When Are There More Laws? When Do They Matter? Using Game Theory to Compare Laws, Power Distribution, and Legal Environments in the United States and China


Li, Ji, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal


Abstract: In several recent cases, the Supreme People's Court of China ruled that local police owe a positive duty to protect individual members of the general public. In strong contrast, the United States Supreme Court declared in two police nonfcasance cases that such duty did not exist under the Federal Constitution. This is counterintuitive, because one would expect that in a liberal democracy where the judiciary is independent and powerful, judges would impose higher standard on local law enforcement officers. One possible explanation is that law does not matter in a developing country such as China, so laws are drafted and interpreted in favor of citizens for the purpose of windowdressing. But if law does not matter at all, why are some proposed laws drafted numerous times before passing the legislature? A conceptual game theory model is able to resolve both the empirical puzzle and the theoretical one. In addition, this interactive model can be applied to explain a broad range of issues in law and politics. The theory is illustrated by the judicial politics of bankruptcy law in China, the making of bankruptcy law in Vietnam, the Chinese law on governmental liability, the American law on police nonfeasance, and changes in the governmental liability law in South Korea.

I. INTRODUCTION

The goal of this paper is to explain the relationship between laws on the books and power politics from a comparative perspective. The seed for this research is an empirical puzzle that springs forth from a comparison of governmental liability law on police nonfeasance between China and the United States. The following two cases, both of which center on police inaction, trigger the theoretical question.

In the first case, the plaintiff is a young woman who wanted to break off her relationship with a man after learning he was already married. The man threatened violence and the woman sought police protection several times. Unfortunately, no assistance was provided. A thug hired by the man threw acid on her face, deforming her and blinding her in one eye. The court found no tort liability for the police's failure to provide specific protection to a member of the public from harm done by another member of the public and dismissed the case.1

In the second case, the plaintiff is a businesswoman who managed a gift shop. There was a motel across the street. Early one morning, disturbing noises woke two guests staying in the motel. They suspected a burglary at the gift shop, and informed the motel manager. After a cursory inspection, the motel manager was certain of a robbery at the gift shop. The manager called the local police department twice and reported the ongoing crime. No police officer was dispatched. After about twenty minutes, the thief left with his booty. Thereafter, the store manager filed a complaint with the police department but got no response. After the business owner filed a lawsuit, the court found the police department liable for failure to protect the property of a member of the public and awarded damages equal to half of the total loss borne by the plaintiff.2

One of these two cases was decided in a democracy with arguably the most sophisticated judicial system in the world, and the other in an authoritarian regime where a functional legal institution barely existed three decades ago. For the uninitiated, a reasonable assumption is that the second case was decided in a democratic setting with a better and more independent judiciary. The decision in the first case seems to substantially favor the unresponsive police department, therefore it must be from a country with little governmental accountability and weak courts. This intuition is wrong, however. The first case was decided in the United States,3 the second in China.4 The former is a liberal democracy, and the latter an authoritarian state with a weak judiciary.

In this article, I attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

When Are There More Laws? When Do They Matter? Using Game Theory to Compare Laws, Power Distribution, and Legal Environments in the United States and China
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?