Editors-in-Chief

Amanda Goceljak       Jianwei Fang

Head Articles Editor

Luis A. Bacalao

Submissions Editor

Xinlin Li

Alumni Editor

Autumn L. Marton

Managing Editor

Chris Tom

Web Editor

Xinping Zhu

Production Editor

Danielle Hemple

Notes Editors

Thomas Moll     Emily Zhu

Stephen MacArthur

Andrew Kerr

Chiansan Ma

Christina Y. Kim

King Fung Tsang

Tung San Victoria Kwan

Yu Shi

Allen Verman Ong

Staff Editors

Boshen Jia Xiao Xiao Dong Soe Jung Kim Ian Jay Joe Lu

Esther Kwak Yinan Zhang Justin Chung Min Yuan Hiroki Sugita

Swathi Sukumar Keeryong Song David Jen-Jieh Tien Lucas Diez Brian Harley Jiangshan Tang

Board of Directors

Benjamin Liebman     Curtis Milhaupt

Jeong-Ho Roh

Director Emeritus

R. Randle Edwards

Editors-in-Chief

Alex Feerst     Cindy Zhou

Production Editor

Jesse Gillespie

Submissions Editor

Ruth Mary Thomas

Managing Editor

Greg Butler

Web Editor

Glenn Lortscher

Notes Editor

Basil Nabi Malik     Yingzhuo Yang

Jianwei Fang

Amanda Goceljak

Hong Zhang

Jacqueline Hu

Xinlin Li

Peter Lochore

Namrata Sharma

Board of Directors

Benjamin Liebman     Curtis Milhaupt

Jeong-Ho Roh

Director Emeritus

R. Randle Edwards

Editors-in-Chief

Shan Jiang     Meg Thering

Managing Editor

Udele Lin

Production Editor

Jeffrey R. Alexander

Submissions Editor

Cindy Zhou

Production Editor

Jeremy Sanchez

Website Editor

John K. Johnson

Notes Editor

Anna Kolontyrsky     Daryl Kuo

Articles Editors

Quinn Arntsen

Adam Cohen

Alex Feerst

Keith Graham

Jianjie Hu

Glenn Lortscher

Shelka Arora

Greg Butler

Noopur Garg

Jesse Gillespie

Jeeyun Clara Han

Sriram Kilapakkam

Akshay Nagpal

Soo-ah Nah

Ram Narayan

Shawn Oakley

Mitsuri Tanizawa

Ruth Thomas

Peng Wu

Yan Zheng

Board of Directors

Benjamin Liebman     Curtis Milhaupt

Jeong-Ho Roh

Director Emeritus

R. Randle Edwards

Editor-in-Chief

Michael Goettig

Managing Editor

Benjamin James

Submissions Editor

Meg Thering

Production Editor

Lillian Lardy

Notes Editor

Chee Kwan (Cole) Kim

Articles Editors

Alex Cheney     Chiraag Kumar

Zhou Qianwei

Staff Editors

Board of Directors

Benjamin Liebman     Curtis Milhaupt Jeong-Ho Roh

Director Emeritus

R. Randle Edwards

Since the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) politically democratized in the late 1980s, efforts have been made to achieve comparable democratization in the social and cultural spheres.  Many other concerns which had previously been overshadowed by the goal of achieving political freedom from authoritarian military rule, such as women’s human rights in the criminal justice system, have since received increased attention.  Korean women’s groups, such as the Korean Women’s Association United, have persistently demanded that victims of sexual violence be well cared for and protected.  In 1992, a girl killed her stepfather, who had repeatedly raped and abused her since she was twelve years old.  This case drew attention to domestic violence and the killing of male abusers by battered women.  Although two special Acts to punish sexual and domestic violence were passed in response to the activism of the women’s movement in the 1990s, Korean criminal law and jurisprudence still do not fully address the issues surrounding women’s human rights in criminal justice.

This article critically reviews Korean criminal law and procedure as they pertain to women.  First, it explores the male-centered definition of rape in Korean criminal law, which recognizes a marital exemption and continues to require the use of “utmost force/threat” and the victim to complain.  Second, it examines the experience of rape victims in the Korean criminal process and then briefly proposes and evaluates modifications for a new system of protection.  Third, it analyzes the reluctance of Korean jurisprudence to justify or excuse a battered woman’s killing of her abusive husband or partner in both confrontational and non-confrontational situations.

When laws, regulations, and rules do not provide clear process requirements for administrative organs, can the judiciary apply the due process principle in reviewing the legality of administrative acts? If so, how does the judiciary apply such a principle? Answers to these two questions directly reflect the judiciary’s actual functions in contemporary China. By statistically analyzing the legal bases invoked in the administrative rulings in Selections from People’s Court Cases and presenting more than ten representative cases concerning administrative process, as well as interviews with judges, this article reviews the development of the due process principle in Chinese judicial practice. Over a period of more than ten years, “violation of statutory process” has become a crucial basis for the judicial review of administrative acts; and judicial awareness and confidence of the due process principle’s application has also been strengthened. Despite its limited power, the Chinese judiciary has demonstrated its activist stance and potential in upholding justice and developing law. Judges’ conception of due process has been jointly shaped by various extra-statutory factors, such as scholars’ introduction and advocacy, standard legislations, legal precedents and the government’s emphasis on law-based administration. These factors have enhanced the legitimacy of judges’ application of the due process principle in rulings as well. However, due to a lack of judicial authority and respect for legal precedents, the judiciary’s innovations in individual cases cannot yet yield a nationwide impact. Nonetheless, innovative rulings may still have ripple effects on similar cases in the future. This fact suggests that legal development in contemporary China happens in a number of different ways, some of which have yet to be fully appreciated or explored.