On the afternoon of May 21, 2026, an academic lecture titled "Legal Order Unified by Illegality?" was successfully held in Room 434, Xingmin Building, Xianlin Campus of Nanjing Normal University. The lecture was delivered by Professor Chen Jinghui from the Law School of Renmin University of China. It was chaired by Chen Hui, Associate Dean of the Law School of Nanjing Normal University. The discussants included Professor He Baisheng, Professor Yuan Yong, Professor Feng Fei, Dean Fang Le, and Professor Yang Jianmin. The event was attended by undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral students from all levels of the law school, filling the venue to capacity and creating a strong academic atmosphere.

At the beginning of the lecture, Associate Dean Chen Hui extended a warm welcome to Professor Chen Jinghui and introduced his outstanding achievements in the fields of Chinese jurisprudence and legal philosophy. Professor Chen Jinghui has long been devoted to the study of legal theory and legal philosophy. He has published numerous academic papers in prestigious journals such as China Legal Science and Chinese Journal of Law, and is the author of Practical Reasons and Legal Reasoning and The Boundaries of Law: The Unfolding of Positivist Theses, making him a leading figure in analytical jurisprudence in China.

In his lecture, Professor Chen Jinghui centered on the theme "Legal Order Unified by Illegality?" and systematically analyzed how illegality could serve as the foundation for legal unity. He pointed out that law makes itself known to people through promulgation and through the practice of legality/illegality, and because illegality often attracts attention in a resounding way, people tend to take illegality as the starting point for understanding law as a whole. On this basis, to distinguish different consequences of illegality, the division of branches of law (civil, administrative, criminal, etc.) emerged. However, this division also brought about the concern of legal "feudal fragmentation." Scholars then attempted to use general illegality as a plastic bag to put together various types of illegality, forming a linear chain: civil illegality → administrative illegality → criminal illegality, thereby constructing a unified legal order based on illegality.
Professor Chen Jinghui criticized this model. He pointed out that this approach only understands the differences among different types of illegality as differences in degree rather than in kind, leading to two serious consequences: first, the criteria for demarcation lack theoretical foundation and degenerate into arbitrary decisions; second, to maintain this chain, the legal system must be drastically trimmed down. Fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution, procedural rules in procedural law, validity rules of legal acts in civil law, and the structure of "citizen suing the administration" in administrative law are all excluded, leaving only administrative enforcement and criminal law that "discipline the people." He then, from the perspective of legal philosophy, distinguished between duty norms and power-conferring norms: illegality refers only to the violation of duties, whereas there are also a large number of norms that confer powers. These norms guide through validity/invalidity rather than through punishment and cannot be encompassed by the concept of illegality. Criminal law consists purely of duty norms, but civil law, constitutional law, administrative law, etc., are not of this nature. Civil law is centered on party autonomy, with torts being only a part. Constitutional law is a complete law conferring public power; unconstitutionality means invalidity, not sanctions. The primary goal of administrative law is to "serve the people," rather than to impose duties on the people. Therefore, there is no unified legal order based on illegality, nor is there any need to unify the legal order under illegality.

During the discussion session, several scholars engaged in an in-depth and lively academic dialogue with Professor Chen Jinghui. Professor He Baisheng raised a query from the perspective of legal values, arguing that unifying the legal order under illegality might deviate from the purpose of state law, as most people never break the law in their lifetime, thus lacking legitimacy; he also questioned Professor Chen’s interpretation of excluding unconstitutionality from illegality. Professor Yuan Yong, from the perspective of the history of legal philosophy, pointed out that Professor Chen’s critique is essentially a cleaning-up of the tradition of sanction-based theories since Austin and Kelsen, and further delved into theoretical difficulties such as the dichotomy between duty norms and power-conferring norms, the relationship between invalidity and sanctions, and the constitutive and regulative rules of constitutional norms. Professor Feng Fei, from the perspective of sociology of law, shared his insights on the classical ideal of the rule of law defended by Professor Chen Jinghui and its practical significance. Professor Yang Jianmin, from the perspective of criminal law, engaged with Professor Chen in an in-depth exchange on issues such as the practical application of the theory of the unity of legal order, the definition of the concept of general illegality, and whether criminal law is necessarily characterized as a last resort.

In the open discussion session, students enthusiastically raised questions on topics such as the relationship between blank penal provisions and the principle of legality, as well as the application of the concept of general illegality in criminal law interpretation. Professor Chen Jinghui answered each question. He especially emphasized that the principle of legality requires criminal law to be a codified statute; the clarity of criminal law cannot be replaced by provisions from other branches of law. He further stated that criminal law is not a last resort but rather a specific key for a specific lock; the relationship among branches of law cannot be understood in terms of linear ordering.
At the end of the lecture, Dean Fang Le delivered a concluding speech. He noted that Professor Chen Jinghui’s lecture not only clarified a long-misunderstood theoretical issue at the level of jurisprudence but, more importantly, demonstrated the power of analytical legal thought. Through precise conceptual analysis, the lecture revealed the hidden cuts and costs behind a seemingly plausible theory. He thanked Professor Chen Jinghui for bringing an intellectual feast to the faculty and students, and also expressed appreciation to the discussants for their wonderful contributions. The lecture came to a successful close amid warm applause.

Text Source: Zhang Guoxiang
Image Source: Graduate Student Union, School of Law