ArticleHeliyon2023
A quantitative evaluation of judicial justice in civil cases with Chinese free trade zone enterprises as the plaintiff.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Justice is the primary criterion for evaluating the law. Chinese free trade zones aim to attract foreign investment and promote economic development efficiency, but their judicial reform goal still needs to be justice. Given the importance of balancing justice and efficiency, this study assesses whether the judiciary sacrifices justice for the sake of economic efficiency in civil cases with Chinese free trade zone enterprises acting as the plaintiff. By introducing commercial factors such as enterprise subject and legal resource characteristics into a theoretical model, this study develops a hierarchical regression model to investigate the judicial process in free trade zones. This study statistically analyzes data from judgments and enterprises' public information, quantitatively evaluating the realization of judicial justice. This study finds: First, plaintiffs' violated rights and interests have been protected and compensated, that is, the judicial result has been just; Second, judicial practice in this field has the characteristics of neutrality, equality, participation, and openness and adheres to the principle of "the same case has the same judgment", that is, the judicial procedure has been just. Accordingly, this study argues that judicial justice has not given way to economic efficiencies, such as attracting foreign investment, in cases with Chinese free trade zone enterprises as the plaintiff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.