On the evening of November 24, 2025, Prof. Burkhard Hess, Global Chair Scholar of Peking University Law School (PKULS) and Professor at the University of Vienna, delivered a lecture titled “Judicial Communications.” The event was chaired by Prof. Cao Zhixun, tenured A.P. of PKULS, with commentary from Prof. Fu Yulin of PKULS and Prof. Jin Yin, A.P. at Renmin University Law School. The hybrid lecture attracted faculty and students both offline in Room 307 of the Koguan Building and online via Tencent Meeting, generating lively discussion.

Burkhard Hess:

Today, I will explore “Traditional Judicial Communications and Judicial Digitalization” through a historical, contemporary, and future-oriented lens, and look forward to exchanging ideas with you.

Judicial adjudication, as a core vehicle for “proclaiming the law,” has always been defined by its public nature, reflected in the evolution of judicial spaces. In 13th–14th century Germany, kings held public trials under linden trees, but practical inconveniences gradually led to dedicated courthouse buildings. Today, courthouses are iconic structures in cities worldwide, symbolizing the judiciary’s presence and facilitating public communication. For example, the Peace Palace in The Hague embodies international judicial authority; France’s Palais de Justice, rooted in medieval royal justice traditions, influenced judicial architecture across Europe; and the former Reichsgericht in Leipzig, built after German unification in 1871, showcased legal unity through its distinct style, including the grand “Hall of Angels” emphasizing judicial publicness and authority. In modern times, the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse shared a building with a post office, reflecting the link between justice and public services, while Brazil’s Supreme Court uses transparent design to symbolize judicial openness, allowing citizens to observe proceedings from outside. However, although the public senses the judiciary’s role, accessing justice remains challenging, and grand buildings can even deter public engagement. How can the judiciary communicate effectively to avoid being perceived as distant?

The key lies in shifting from physical structures to digital platforms, with court websites serving as central tools. I see two core functions: first, access, providing services like case file retrieval and online filing; second, communication, disseminating institutional information, trial updates, and judgment explanations. Notably, most jurisdictions lack laws regulating these functions, leaving practices to courts’ discretion, resulting in varied approaches. For instance, the website of Germany’s Federal Court of Justice represents a conservative model: low internationalization, incomplete digitization of older cases, minimal leadership profiles, no live streaming, and basic annual reports, showing limited outreach. In contrast, Austria’s Supreme Court site exemplifies a modern, comprehensive model: detailed institutional introductions, full case databases, thorough annual reports, and public judge profiles, offering robust support for users. Other courts feature specialized functions: China’s International Commercial Court website combines service and communication, providing judge backgrounds, procedures, recent cases, and an online filing platform; the Court of Justice of the EU offers extensive case databases and selected annual judgments, transcending physical barriers; and the International Court of Justice ensures accessibility with multilingual updates, such as its July 2025 advisory opinion on climate change.

Based on this evolution, I propose three issues for discussion:

1. Should judicial communication be regulated? Yes—laws should define courts’ duties. France’s Court Organization Act mandates online presence; Austria has specialized units curating freely accessible cases; Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary coordinates communication.

2. Do courts have a duty of transparency? The traditional view that “courts speak only through judgments” is inadequate today. France’s Supreme Court treats communication as a judicial duty, requiring clear public explanations; Germany is discussing “judgment popularization.”

3. Does judicial communication open new comparative law horizons? Absolutely. This field demands ongoing attention to best practices while mindful of risks.

Commentary by Prof. Fu Yulin:

Judicial communication closely relates to transparency. China began publishing judgments online in 2013, but post-2020, scope narrowed partly to avoid public criticism of flawed rulings and manage information overload. How can we balance communication needs with potential risks?

Response: I distinguish between court-controlled communication and public discussions on platforms. The latter may pose risks, but courts can effectively inform the public by managing their websites.

Commentary by Prof. Jin Yin:

Courts serve political, professional, and public-service functions, explaining varied website styles. China’s Supreme Court site reflects political functions with dual Chinese/English versions; German sites target professionals like lawyers, leveraging judicial tradition and public trust; U.S. courts involve jurors directly, and Canada’s Supreme Court posts festive judge photos, showing approachability.

Response: This functional analysis is insightful. However, declining court influence is a global challenge due to cost, delay, and uncertainty. Digital-era alternatives like online dispute resolution gain popularity, necessitating judicial communication reforms.

Q&A

Q1 (Zhu Yuchen, Assistant Researcher, RUC): How should conflicts between judicial communication and personal data protection be resolved? Can parties request content adjustment, deletion, or compensation?

Response: Balance is key—safeguard public access while protecting privacy. The U.S. largely allows public file access with limited redaction; civil law systems require demonstrating legitimate interest for access. Interestingly, in patent cases I’ve seen, both U.S. and European files often redact heavily, showing convergence in practice.

Q2 (Li Hao, PhD Candidate, PKU): Complex raw judicial data is hard to disseminate or study. Should courts partner with commercial entities (e.g., Westlaw) to process data?

Response: Models vary, but the trend is government-led processing with limited commercial role. Laws should clarify publication processes and data protection. I oppose paid access—data disclosure should be a public service. Sensitive judicial data ought to be handled by public bodies, though some countries face challenges due to existing private sector dominance.

Q3 (Liu Shihao, PhD Candidate, PKU): If AI-generated legal advice diverges from court rulings, could it undermine public trust in justice?

Response: Clear frameworks are needed: judges remain responsible for rulings; AI is only an aid. Even if used in initial decisions (e.g., on commercial platforms), appeal to human judges must be preserved, maintaining trust.

Q4 (Liang Wenyi, Malaysian Master’s Student, PKU): Do common law and civil law systems differ in judicial communication, with common law more public-engaged?

Response: Differences are often overstated. For example, Dubai’s DIFC Courts use common law models despite civil law influences; the Netherlands adopts common law procedural elements. Variations are more about degree than kind.

Q5 (Zhang Xuran, PhD Candidate, PKU): Should “right to know,” “access,” and “information” be distinguished? Can judicial communication be “formal” (e.g., websites) vs. “informal” (e.g., social media)?

Response: Definitions matter—each concept implies different rights and obligations. Formal communication centers on judgments; informal includes press releases or interviews, increasingly formalized. Practice-based analysis, as in my talk, better captures complexity.

Q6 (Hong Rufei, Master’s Student, PKU): Does transparency lose value in cases relying on judicial discretion rather than clear legal reasoning?

Response: Doctrinal frameworks can guide discretion application, supported by precedents and appellate review. Transparency is upheld through reasoned explanations, even with general clauses.

Q7 (Online Anonymous): What is the biggest challenge you’ve faced in judicial communication practice?

Response: Adapting to digitalization. Recently, an Austrian court refused video testimony from a French witness caring for young children, insisting on physical presence. Such resistance reflects a broader issue: the main hurdle is not technology but mindset—embracing digital communication is essential.

Translated by: Guo Zhongqi

Edited by: Zhang Wenyi