Understanding Chinese Supreme People's Court operation through its judicial interpretation on social security
PKU's Susan Finder explains how China's social security judicial interpretation reflects the views of the SPC, National People's Congress, ministries, and social groups.
The August (2025) Supreme People's Court (SPC) Judicial Interpretation on Labor Dispute Cases (II) (Labor Dispute Interpretation II 最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（二) is one of the few SPC judicial interpretations to attract significant public and press attention in and out of China.
Most of the attention has centered on China's social security system, with deeper concerns raised about the costs, fairness, and sustainability of the country's pension system. I also addressed these concerns in a recent newsletter, in case you missed it.
Rather than being a purely technical explanation, this judicial interpretation seems more like a carefully timed political signal, reflecting the authorities' broader stance on businesses, employees, and the whole social security system.
Therefore, understanding the political factors behind this interpretation — particularly which authorities' views it reflects — is crucial.
Today's newsletter will take a more nuanced perspective, looking at this judicial interpretation as a window into the coordination and interaction between China's SPC, legislative bodies (such as the National People's Congress), administrative agencies, and social groups.
This perspective is rarely explored in public discussions. The author of this piece is Susan Finder, a distinguished scholar with nearly 40 years of experience researching China's judicial system in a comparative context.
Professor Finder holds a degree from Yale College, a Master of Laws from Columbia Law School, and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. She began her career at the City University of Hong Kong, where she taught courses on Hong Kong and Chinese law from 1988 to 1994. Since 2016, she has served as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Peking University School of Transnational Law.
In 2013, Dr. Finder launched her blog, Supreme People’s Court Monitor, which provides insights into the activities of China's highest court and highlights new developments. According to her, the blog has no official ties to the Supreme People's Court.
In her latest article, "2025 Labor Dispute Interpretation II and the Work of the Supreme People’s Court," published on August 31, Dr. Finder argues that this judicial interpretation may not only reflect the views of the SPC but could also indicate the positions of other key bodies, including the legislative arm, or National People's Congress (NPC) Legislative Affairs Committee, possibly the Social Affairs Development Committee of the NPC, as well as several administrative agencies such as the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Justice. Relevant social groups, such as the All-China Federation of Trade Unions and the China Association for Small and Medium Enterprises, might also play a role. Together, these entities highlight the coordination of administrative and judicial standards.
Additionally, this judicial interpretation signals the SPC's support for the National People's Congress, a point that is little known to the public.
Lastly, Dr. Finder suggests that the typical cases released alongside judicial interpretations are often underestimated. The term "controversial" used in the typical cases and news briefing points to the fact that, on some issues, the SPC has not reached full consensus with other authorities.
I am grateful to Dr. Finder for granting me permission to share her full article below.
2025 Labor Dispute Interpretation II and the Work of the Supreme People’s Court
The August (2025) Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Judicial Interpretation on Labor Dispute Cases (II) (Labor Dispute Interpretation II 最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（二) is one of the few SPC judicial interpretations to attract significant public and press attention in and out of China. As the institution’s usual practice, the SPC also released a set of typical cases. Rather than duplicate commentary on the substance of the judicial interpretation, which law firms and others are providing, this post focuses on three aspects of this interpretation that provide examples of the work and functioning of the SPC:
the link between Labor Dispute Interpretation II and the harmonization of administrative and judicial standards;
Labor Dispute Interpretation II and SPC support for the work of the National People’s Congress (Standing Committee);
the role of typical cases (典型案例) (also translated as exemplary or model or representative)
(Each is linked to my ongoing research.)
1. The harmonization of administrative and judicial standards
During the press conference announcing Labor Dispute Interpretation II, #1 Civil Division Chief Judge Chen Yifang 陈宜芳stated:
在多次征求立法机关、行政机关、有关社会团体等意见，并向社会公开征求意见后，对基本达成共识的问题作出规定…(After repeatedly soliciting opinions from legislative bodies, administrative organs, relevant social groups, and publicly soliciting opinions from society, it [the SPC] has made stipulations for issues on which consensus has been basically reached)
This bureaucratic language needs decoding. It means that the legal positions taken by the SPC in Labor Dispute Interpretation II represent not only the views of the SPC, but also the relevant institutions regulating labor matters. What “soliciting opinions from legislative bodies (立法机关)” means is that the SPC drafters sought comments on their draft multiple times from institutions of the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee. The Legislative Work Committee must have been one of the institutions with which the SPC discussed the draft. It is possible that the NPC’s Social Affairs Development Committee also commented. Additionally, the SPC solicited opinions multiple times from administrative agencies (行政机关)-likely referring to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and I surmise other administrative organs, such as the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. “Relevant social groups” is likely to mean the All-China Federation of Trade Unions and the China Association for Small and Medium Enterprises. If the #1 Civil Division publishes an “understanding and application” article on this interpretation, it will provide more details on the institutions that commented on this interpretation.
This also illustrates one of the principles underlying the SPC’s work on labor law issues, harmonizing administrative and judicial standards, as shown in several policy documents, such as the Opinions of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People’s Court on Strengthening the Building of a Mechanism of Connection between Arbitration and Litigation of Labor and Personnel Disputes (人力资源社会保障部最高人民法院关于加强劳动人事争议仲裁与诉讼衔接机制建设的意见), which states “standards for application of law in [labor] arbitration and litigation shall be gradually unified” (逐步统一裁审法律适用标准).
It is also consistent with rules governing the drafting of judicial interpretations. Those require the SPC’s Research Office, which reviews drafts before they are submitted to the judicial (adjudication) committee for approval to review whether the draft “has sufficiently and objectively reflected the major opinions of the parties concerned” （是否充分、客观反映有关方面的主要意见). ”
2. SPC support for the work of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee
Labor Dispute Resolution II also indirectly illustrates a poorly understood aspect of the SPC’s work–supporting the work of the NPC (and its Standing Committee), including in the NPC’s law enforcement inspection work, which, as the NPC Observer has pointed out, is emphasizing integrating oversight with legislation. The relevant legislation is the Social Insurance Law, which is now on the legislative agenda.
As could be surmised from the NPC Observer’s overview of NPC Standing Committee law enforcement inspections, it is normal practice for the SPC to report to NPC Standing Committee law enforcement inspection groups. The one related to Labor Dispute Resolution II was revealed at the November 2024 meeting of the NPC Standing Committee, when the agenda included the Report of the Law Enforcement Inspection Group of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Regarding the Inspection of the Implementation of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China (全国人民代表大会常务委员会执法检查组关于检查《中华人民共和国社会保险法》实施情况的报告). This report contained one sentence that touched on the SPC. It stated that at the first meeting of the Law Enforcement Inspection Group, responsible comrades (officials) from the SPC and other relevant institutions reported on the implementation of the Social Insurance Law (6月4日，执法检查组召开第一次全体会议，王东明副委员长作讲话，部署执法检查工作；人力资源社会保障部、财政部、税务总局、国家医保局、最高人民法院负责同志汇报社会保险法的实施情况).
When preparing Labor Dispute Interpretation II, the drafters would have been aware of the serious problems with implementing the Social Insurance Law. Some observers anticipate that the provisions in Labor Dispute Interpretation II relating to social insurance signal positions that will be incorporated into amendments to the Social Insurance Law. If so, that would provide another example of the codification in legislation of a provision in a judicial interpretation (as discussed in my 2024 article).
3. Typical Cases
The SPC often issues a set of typical cases to accompany a judicial interpretation, as highlighted in previous posts, but their role appears to be underappreciated. Analysis of these cases can be found here and elsewhere. At the SPC’s press conference, following the phrase quoted above, Judge Chen Yifang 陈宜芳 said:
对争议较大的问题将继续加强调研，通过发布典型案例等方式指导司法实践 we will continue to strengthen research on controversial issues and guide judicial practice by publishing typical cases and other means.
This bureaucratic phrase can be decoded to provide additional insights about the work of the SPC. The first part signals that certain unspecified issues were omitted from the final draft of the interpretation because they were “controversial,” meaning the SPC did not reach a consensus with other institutions on those topics. The second phrase illustrates that the SPC uses typical cases as one of its tools to guide the lower courts, including on “controversial issues.”
Conclusion
The first two aspects provide discrete examples of the nuanced relationships between the SPC and other institutions, particularly the NPC Standing Committee (the subject of one forthcoming article) and administrative agencies (the subject of another forthcoming article), while the third is another example of those nuanced relationships as well as the use the SPC makes of “typical cases” (典型案例).