IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i8p1187-d1448060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Use Evidence Rules Reasonably to Resolve Land Disputes: Analysis of Typical Land Dispute Cases from China

Author

Listed:
  • Lingling Li

    (School of Humanities and Social Development, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Haoran Gao

    (School of Humanities and Social Development, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Bingjie Song

    (Centre for Regional Economies and Supply Chains, Central Queensland University, Mackay, QLD 4740, Australia)

  • Caixian Cui

    (School of Humanities and Social Development, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

Abstract

Against the background of the integrated development of urban and rural areas in China, land disputes are gradually increasing and becoming a prominent focus of interest in current Chinese society. In the process of dispute settlement, it is challenging for land disputes to reconstruct the evidence chain with the help of systematic land evidence, and the information asymmetry between parties intensifies social contradictions. Currently, in the context of several research practices concerning evidence, China lacks a comprehensive and traditional system of integrated land evidence theory. Specific applicable rules for different types of land evidence can only be summarized by judicial referees. The challenge in the field of land evidence lies in establishing specific rules and addressing the issue of scattered individual rules. To overcome the challenges posed by various land evidence types and the difficulties in applying traditional evidence rules, we employ the land case analysis method to examine judicial judgment documents related to land disputes. This approach allows us to summarize the facts of land dispute cases, compare the judgments made in these cases and further highlight the similarities and differences in the land evidence considered by the referees. Through this process, this paper aims to establish a legally significant practical framework for the classification of land evidence, filling the theoretical gap in the operational mechanism of land evidence and unlocking the potential for applying evidence methods in land dispute resolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingling Li & Haoran Gao & Bingjie Song & Caixian Cui, 2024. "How to Use Evidence Rules Reasonably to Resolve Land Disputes: Analysis of Typical Land Dispute Cases from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-34, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1187-:d:1448060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1187/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1187/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo, 2007. "The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 107-140, January.
    2. Kalabamu, Faustin Tirwirukwa, 2019. "Land tenure reforms and persistence of land conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa – The case of Botswana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 337-345.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiarella, Cristina & Rufin, Philippe & Abeygunawardane, Dilini & Bey, Adia & Lisboa, Sá Nogueira & Zavale, Helder & Meyfroidt, Patrick, 2024. "Impacts of large-scale forestry investments on neighboring small-scale agriculture in northern Mozambique," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 145, pages 1-15.
    2. Shafi, Ahsan & Wang, Zhanqi & Ehsan, Muhsan & Riaz, Faizan Ahmed & Ali, Muhammad Rashid & Xu, Feng, 2023. "A game theory approach to land acquisition conflicts in Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Shirzad, Hossein & Barati, Ali Akbar & Ehteshammajd, Shaghayegh & Goli, Imaneh & Siamian, Narges & Moghaddam, Saghi Movahhed & Pour, Mahdad & Tan, Rong & Janečková, Kristina & Sklenička, Petr & Azadi,, 2022. "Agricultural land tenure system in Iran: An overview," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. Zhou, Yang & Li, Xunhuan & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Brahima Coulibaly & Shixiang Li, 2020. "Impact of Agricultural Land Loss on Rural Livelihoods in Peri-Urban Areas: Empirical Evidence from Sebougou, Mali," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Bosco Bashangwa Mpozi & Mireille Mizero & Andrew Ogolla Egesa & Paul M. Dontsop Nguezet & Bernard Vanlauwe & Patrice Ndimanya & Philippe Lebailly, 2020. "Land Access in the Development of Horticultural Crops in East Africa. A Case Study of Passion Fruit in Burundi, Kenya, and Rwanda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Furui Xi & Runping Wang & Jusong Shi & Jinde Zhang & Yang Yu & Na Wang & Zhiyi Wang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Pattern and Conflict Identification of Production–Living–Ecological Space in the Yellow River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, May.
    8. Ibrahim, Abdul-Salam & Abubakari, Mohammed & Akanbang, Bernard A.A. & Kepe, Thembela, 2022. "Resolving land conflicts through Alternative Dispute Resolution: Exploring the motivations and challenges in Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Lenggenhager, Luregn & Ramutsindela, Maano, 2021. "Property killed a peace park dream: The entanglement of property, politics and conservation along the Gariep," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Benito Arruñada & Marco Fabbri & Michael Faure, 2022. "Land Titling and Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 131-156.
    11. Inoussa Guinin Asso & Soulé Akinhola Adéchian & Mohamed Salifou & Bédé Prudence M’po Kouyinampou & Bruno Charles Pierre O’heix & Mohamed Nasser Baco, 2022. "Effects of the Systematic Cluster Approach (SCA) and Rural Land Plans (RLPs) on Land Tenure Security for Agricultural Household: Insight from Benin (West Africa)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.
    13. Bekele, Adugna Eneyew & Drabik, Dusan & Dries, Liesbeth & Heijman, Wim, 2022. "Large-scale land investments and land-use conflicts in the agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Jamaluddin Hos & Siti Kusujiarti & Jumintono & Ambo Upe & Muhammad Arsyad & Hasniah & Firdaus Yuni Dharta & Jemma Natanson, 2022. "Conflict Management in Multiethnic Communities: a Case Study in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1963-1985, December.
    15. Kalabamu, Faustin Tirwirukwa, 2021. "A commentary on Botswana’s 2019 National Land Policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    16. Edward K. Cheng, 2014. "Comment on Dawid, Faigman, and Fienberg (2014)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 396-400, August.
    17. Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 21-48, December.
    18. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    19. Zhihui Li & Yao Liu & Xiyuan Hu & Guiqiang Wang, 2022. "A new uniform framework of source attribution in forensic science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Adekola, Oluwafemi & Krigsholm, Pauliina & Riekkinen, Kirsikka, 2021. "Towards a holistic land law evaluation in sub-Saharan Africa: A novel framework with an application to Rwanda’s organic land law 2005," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1187-:d:1448060. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.