(scroll down for English version)

中国公开法庭（China Open Courts） 致力于保存并向公众提供来自中华人民共和国、可能面临从官方来源消失风险的司法文书。以下为本项目采用的方法概述，包括数据收集策略、覆盖范围以及确保信息持续准确与相关的计划。

1. 背景

近年来，一些密切关注中国司法发展的观察人士对中国境内司法文书不断消失的趋势表示担忧。例如，人权组织 Safeguard Defenders 指出，与指定居所监视居住相关的判决中，约有 17% 不见踪影 [1]。

在长期以来，公开且可靠的裁判文书对透明度、问责制和法治意义重大。而在当今中国这样的威权体制中，法律体系常被用来打压持不同政见者，这些公共司法记录对一直致力于推动中国和香港司法及政治改革的人来说，仍然是一种宝贵的信息来源。尽管近年来已有个别人士开始归档部分案件，但这些努力相对分散、规模有限，并且依然可能受到审查的影响。

因此，我们认为有必要以安全、有意义、系统化且全面的方式保存此类重要文书，并相信我们所提出的项目将在长期内为建设一个自由且开放的中国社会发挥作用。

2. 项目范围与理论依据

近年来的趋势显示，中国境内的司法文书——尤其与政治或社会敏感议题相关的案件——正以前所未有的速度从官方平台消失。为应对这一问题，我们的试点项目重点关注最能反映法律维权行动的相关文书 [2]，并在初期主要聚焦于以下三个主题：

• 《反家庭暴力法》
• 《环境保护法》
• 死刑相关案例

这种针对性方法能够确保在这些重点领域工作的法律从业者和研究者依旧能获取关键的法律文书。

自 2023 年下半年起，截至目前，我们已收集到大约 20,000 份司法文书。虽然这与截至 2023 年 10 月 15 日中国裁判文书网（https://wenshu.court.gov.cn）上的 1.429 亿多条文书相比仅是九牛一毛，但已为我们后续更全面、长期的工作打下了基础。

3. 数据收集与处理

本项目中所有文书均直接来自于 中国裁判文书网（https://wenshu.court.gov.cn），这是目前最权威的中国法院裁判文书公开平台。具体而言，我们通过以下三个搜索关键词进行抓取：

• “反家庭暴力法”
• “环境保护法”
• “死刑”

需要说明的是，团队对从官方网站抓取到的文书不进行任何修改或添加处理，所有裁判文书均以原貌保存。

至于每份裁判文书的元数据（如“日期”、“案号”以及“法院”等），团队通过自动化脚本从文书内容中提取，并对应到数据集中各字段。这些字段也在我们的网站上支持搜索与排序功能，方便使用者检索和分析。

4. 基于区块链的归档

本项目所收集并展示的所有裁判文书都通过区块链技术进行安全保管，从而实现去中心化与不可篡改，确保数据在透明度、防篡改和完整性方面的可信度。我们的目标是利用区块链作为抵御审查的一种方式，来保存这些极其宝贵的公共记录。

5. 数据验

由于资源有限且案件数量庞大，我们无法保证涵盖中国所有裁判文书，亦无法保证所有最敏感的文书能在遭到官方审查或删除前及时收录。故而，我们的数据在极富政治敏感性的领域可能依旧存在缺失。

同时，本试点项目暂不具备大规模与外部数据库进行交叉比对的条件（主要原因是相关数据难以公开获取），但我们通过抽查的方式来保证数据内部的一致性。例如，核对元数据字段（如法院级别、日期）与文书实际内容的匹配度。

未来，我们计划在项目的迭代中进一步扩充关键词与地区覆盖范围，并探索与更多民间组织或其他数据源进行交叉验证的方法，以增强数据的完整性和可靠性。

6. 使用与合作

本数据库是更大范围的开源举措之一，旨在保护对推进中国法治建设、司法改革和公共意识至关重要的裁判文书。

我们诚邀研究人员、记者以及社会组织参与数据提供或就关键案件提供见解。借助集体的力量，可进一步深化数据库的深度、准确性和实用性。

如对本项目有更多兴趣，或希望与我们探讨新的关键词、话题，欢迎随时通过 chinaopencourts@protonmail.com 与我们联系。

[1] https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/chinas-missing-verdicts
[2] 参见 Wang, Y., & Xia, Y. (2023). State-Sponsored Activism: How China’s Law Reforms Impact NGOs’ Legal Practice. Law & Social Inquiry, 1-27. doi:10.1017/lsi.2022.75

China Open Courts aims to preserve and provide public access to judicial records from the People’s Republic of China that are at risk of disappearing from official sources. Below is an overview of the methodology adopted in this project, including our data collection strategies, scope of coverage, and plans for ensuring continued accuracy and relevance of the information.

1. Background

In recent years, careful observers of the Chinese judicial development have raised concerns over an alarming trend of disappearing judicial records in China. For instance, Safeguard Defenders, a human rights NGO, finds that almost 17% of the verdicts in relation to residential surveillance went missing [1].

Free and reliable public access to verdicts and judgments have long been important cornerstones for transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, and in autocratic regimes like today’s China where the legal system has often been weaponised to oppress dissidents, these public records serve as invaluable source of information for people who have long fought for judicial and political reforms in China. Although some individuals have started to archive cases in recent years, these efforts are largely scattered, limited in scale, and still subject to censorship.

Thus, we trust that there is a pressing need to preserve such important records in a secure, meaningful, systematic and comprehensive manner, and that our proposed project will serve the mission of building a free and open society in China in the long-run.

1. Project Scope and Rationale

Recent trends in China indicate that judicial records—particularly those involving politically or socially sensitive topics—are disappearing at an alarming rate from official platforms. In response, our pilot project concentrates on records that are most relevant to legal activism [2], focusing initially on three topics, namely, the Anti-Domestic Violence Law (反家庭暴力法), Environmental Protection Law (环境保护法) and Death Penalty (死刑). This targeted approach helps ensure that practitioners and researchers working in these areas have continued access to pivotal legal documents.
As an experimental effort, since late 2023, we have collected approximately 20,000 judicial records. While this is a fraction of the vast number of records available on the China Judgments Online portal (as of 15 October 2023, there were 142,936,265 entries), it serves as a foundation for a more comprehensive, long-term endeavour.

2. Data Collection and Processing

All records in this project are directly archived from the China Judgments Online Portal at https://wenshu.court.gov.cn. This portal is the most authoritative source of Chinese court judgments available to the public.Specifically,the team collected our records by using the following three search terms:“反家庭暴力法”, “环境保护法”, “死刑”. Note that all judgments collected are directly captured from the official website, and there is no tampering or additional processing of the judgment itself from our team.

As for the metadata of each judgment, as denoted in each column of the dataset, such as “date”, “case number” and “court”, we built an automated script to collect the data from the judgment. All of these columns are searchable and sortable from our website.

3. Blockchain-based Archive

All judicial records collected and displayed in this project are secured and maintained using blockchain technology, through which they are decentralized and immutable, ensuring transparency, tamper-resistance, and trust in the integrity of the data. Our goal is to utilize blockchain as a form of censorship resistance to preserve invaluable public records.

5. Data Validation

Given resource constraints and the sheer volume of cases, we cannot guarantee comprehensive coverage of all judgments in China. Some sensitive documents may be censored or removed before we can archive them; as such, our dataset may be incomplete in areas most vulnerable to political scrutiny.

While this pilot effort does not currently incorporate large-scale cross-referencing with external databases (due to limited availability of such data as explained), we perform spot checks for internal consistency. For instance, metadata fields (e.g., court level, date) are verified to match the content of each judgment.

Future iterations of the project may expand to additional keywords or geographic regions and implement more robust cross-verification methods with non-governmental sources.

6. Use and Collaboration

This database is part of a broader, open-source initiative to preserve judicial records crucial to the advancement of justice, legal reforms, and public awareness in China.

We invite researchers, journalists, and civil society actors to contribute additional data or to share insights about key cases. This collective effort enhances the dataset’s depth, accuracy, and usability.

Interested parties are welcome to reach out to our team at chinaopencourts@protonmail.com for further information, collaboration opportunities, or suggestions on additional keywords and topics to include.

[1] https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/chinas-missing-verdicts.

[2] See, for instance, Wang, Y., & Xia, Y. (2023). State-Sponsored Activism: How China’s Law Reforms Impact NGOs’ Legal Practice. Law & Social Inquiry, 1-27. doi:10.1017/lsi.2022.75.