Professor He Weifang of Peking University's law school has been an outspoken and fearless advocate of far-reaching law reform for over a decade. In the Name of Justice: Striving for the Rule of Law in China collects some of the articles and interviews he has published during that time. The fact that they were first published in China without being suppressed is evidence of how far open discussion of Chinese law reform has come; however, the fact that the transformations he has called for remain so distant shows how much further meaningful reform must go.

In part one, appropriately entitled “Judicial Independence: China's Treacherous Path,” He's first chapter lucidly summarizes the principal characteristics of China's pre-modern legal tradition and attempts at judicial reform under the KMT. Always attentive to the persistence of traditional legal culture, he notes particularly the difficulty of establishing the principle of separation of powers. He argues that this continues today:

This quotation illustrates a theme that He repeatedly emphasizes: the need to look to Western systems of democratic legality while remaining attentive to Chinese history and culture.

Professor He is outspoken about some of the critical defects in the current system, of which the foremost is the Party's supremacy over the courts, glaringly illustrated by the use of conferences – among chief judge, the chief procurator and the police chief – that decide the case before they go to trial (p. 2).

Professor He's insights are dispersed throughout the book, which includes essays on the legal profession, legal education, freedom of the press and abolition of the death penalty. His programme of goals for legal reform is set forth succinctly in “Remarks at the New Western Hills Symposium,” a talk given in 2006 and discussed more specifically in the other essays. He aims for nothing less than constitutional democracy, which would include a ”multiparty system, freedom of the press, and true democracy safeguarding civil liberty like what is practised in Taiwan” (pp. 126–27). Specific recommendations (pp. 127–130) include:

• – Splitting the Communist Party into “two factions,” while putting the military under command of the state;

• – Requiring the Party to register;

• – Transforming the National People's Congress into a truly representative body, democratically elected;

• – Meaningfully guaranteeing basic rights stated in the current constitution such as freedom of speech and association;

• – True judicial independence “that can effectively restrict the government's exercise of power”;

• – Privatizing rural land presently collectively owned by farmers;

• – Guaranteeing “transactional security,” currently impaired by lack of judicial independence of courts “under the sway” of local government.

Cheng Li, in his excellent introduction, writes that Professor He “seems to have combined, in a remarkably balanced way, both idealism and pragmatism in his search for a constitutional China” (p. xlviii). Professor He realizes that the transformation he seeks could only occur after what he acknowledges as a great deal of time and effort. This does not deter him from describing the configuration of institutions that China should ultimately construct, without trying to predict the time that would be required. Despite the uncertainty of the future of reform, he is unrelenting in his pursuit of his goals, and remarkably upbeat about attaining the ultimate results.

This unique book would obviously be useful for university classes on modern China, Chinese politics and, of course, on Chinese law. It should also be recommended for any readers interested in the future of the Chinese political system for insight into current debate and as a powerful reminder that China is not a monolith and China's leaders cannot censor all ideas.

Professor He has been sanctioned for popularizing his views. In 2008 he received an offer from the law school of Zhejiang University that was then withdrawn, and he was then exiled to a small university in distant Xinjiang, where he taught for two years before returning to Peking University. He says the two years of exile allowed him to leave a “politically troubled area and pursue some good reading in beautiful Xinjiang” (p. 42).

The spirit of this author is remarkable, and is reflected in the sentiments he expresses in his final essay. He continues to write and speak without fear, and in his final essay he says that he is no longer censored and that “society is changing for the better” (p. 218). If he is right, He's advocacy might help energize China's long march along what he has called “China's treacherous path.”