The judgment enforcement in a legal framework is concerned with many principles that underlie and enrich macro-theory. The current theory has made progress in it, but few is related to the specific structure of the regime. This article analyzes the present problems of enforcing court’s judgment in China. In accordance with relevant theories and by reference to experiences of other countries and areas, it treats with the problems concerning enforcement body, enforcement jurisdiction, the term of enforcement application, enforcement notice, property investigation of the forced measures, enforcement assistance, enforcement termination, enforcement remedies, enforcement deterrence and so on, which are calling on to improve the enforcement framework.

Many elements of administrative law are related to real right law. The regulations on public interests concern the base of interference of public powers. The content of administrative private law is associated with the phenomenon of “Flucht in das Privatrecht”. The control of the property by the based self-ruling community is connected with indirect state administration. The rights of the property by citizens are subjective public rights. Special sacrifice and die junktimklausel are preconditions of compensation for expropriation. The register of real estate shows the interference of public right. The real right law makes rules for administrative public domain is a special example.

Based on past court practices, the Supreme Court of China promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is in line with the international trend of justice-arbitration relationship and reflects the pro-arbitration idea, as well as making a new step forward in the evolution of China’s judicial intendance over arbitration. However, confined by current legislation and due to inadequate judicial experiences, some problems still remain in the judicial intendance mechanism for further solution.

It becomes a tendency to introduce the German and Japanese theory in the structure of crime to restructure that of China. However, Chinese structure of crime is not that poor as criticized?while that of Germany and Japan applauded by reformist also has disadvantages, such as the confliction inside the system, the deviation of actuality and original intention and the only systematic notion, etc. The issues of Chinese structure of crime, e.g. the relationship of the constituents is not clear and the concept of crime deduced from the structure of crime is too simple, can be solved by carrying through the object-preferred step-up notion and setting up the concept of crime with various meanings. Thus, the current structure of crime does not have to be restructured.

Irregular disputes involving a certain community presented in the form of special maneuver and confrontation are noticeable social phenomena in China today. The issues related to irregular disputes and their settlement mechanism have transcended the professional and technical categories of regular judicial settlement, typically reflecting the profound background of political, legal and social development in China. To achieve the goal of social harmony, an extensive mobilization and utilization of political, judicial and various social resources in effectively dealing with this kind of social disputes is the key to enhancing China’s capability in controlling and resolving social disputes.