This chapter examines the introduction of new lay participation systems in Asian countries. Focusing on Russia, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, I explore the social and political contexts and goals of the policymakers that motivated the incorporation of citizen decision-making into the legal systems of these countries. In each of the four countries, the adoption of new systems of lay participation occurred during periods of political democratization. Those who argued in favor of citizen involvement hoped that it would promote democratic self-governance, create more robust connections between the citizenry and the government, and improve public confidence in the courts. Policymakers drew on the experiences of other countries, including other Asian nations, to develop a distinctive model that incorporated some features of lay participation systems elsewhere, and modified them to suit the specific circumstances of their own countries.

This chapter examines the Chinese government’s approach to political crimes and extradition procedures from the treaty ports during the first two decades of the Republic in the 1910s–1920s. It seeks to understand how the ideas of extradition and the POE changed in this period as a result of both domestic and global political processes: the growth of nationalism and communism, the strengthening and consolidation of the political parties, the increased professionalization of Chinese lawyers and judges, and the emergence of critical voices among foreign powers on the institution of extraterritoriality. The chapter presents a legal and transnational view of the Chinese Revolution in the first two decades of the Republic, illuminating the profound impact of extraterritoriality and changing extradition rules on China’s political trajectory.

This chapter argues that contemporary debates about the constitution and expansion of mixed courts in Norway reveal a tension in attitudes toward lay participation in the legal system. On the one hand, lawyers and laypersons in Norway evince confidence that professional legal actors can effectively collaborate with jurors to reach verdicts. On the other hand, both laypersons and attorneys worry that when it comes to the prosecution of some crimes – particularly sex crimes – laypersons cannot be relied upon to do justice. After offering an overview of Norway’s shifting jury system, the chapter argues that judicial interventions in the jury system have contributed to its gradual loss of legitimacy. Drawing on empirical research, I argue that critiques of rape prosecutions have both amplified and sharpened the stakes of critiques of lay participation more broadly, though – at least for the moment – mixed courts of lay and professional judges are perceived to remedy the shortcomings of all-layperson juries.