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

Lingling Li, Haoran Gao, Bingjie Song and Caixian Cui ()
Additional contact information
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

Land, 2024, vol. 13, issue 8, 1-34

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.

Keywords: China; land disputes; land evidence; land judicial adjudication; classification of land evidence; rules of land evidence (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1187/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1187/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1187-:d:1448060

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().