Comparative Jurisprudential Deconstruction of the Modernisation of the Labour Law System: A Cross-Border Perspective on the Logic of Codification and the Application of Principles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53469/ijomsr.2025.08(03).08Keywords:
Modernization of labour law, Codification, Non-standard employment, Principle of preferential protection, Extraterritorial application, Chinese schemeAbstract
Driven by global economic integration and the technological revolution, traditional labour patterns are rapidly transforming into non-standard employment, and the labour law system is facing the need for modernization and reconstruction. Taking China, France and the United States as comparative samples, this paper reveals the deep-rooted contradictions in the modernisation of the labour law and the solution paths through the three-dimensional analysis of the logic of codification, the application of principles and extraterritorial rules. The study finds that: codification presents the paradigm of “social orientation (China) - public law procedure (France) - judicial activism (US)”, and China’s “big social law” system emphasises the protection of workers’ rights and interests, but faces the challenge of insufficient supply of non-standard employment systems; In the regulation of non-standard employment, the “ABC test” of the United States promotes a revolution in the determination of the subordination of platform employment, while the concept of “incomplete labour relationship” in China needs to be refined; there are cultural and genetic differences in the application of labour law principles, and disputes over the boundaries of the principle of tilted protection. There are cultural and genetic differences in the application of labour law principles, and disputes over the boundaries of the tilted protection principle (China’s open-ended contract system and France’s cap on termination indemnities), and the market tension of the principle of freedom of labour (Singapore’s flexi-time and Germany’s liberalisation lessons) highlight the difficulty of balancing the system. In terms of extraterritorial application rules, the US “centre of gravity standard”, the French “more favourable principle” and China’s “substantive control” penetration mechanism form complementary experiences. The study puts forward a Chinese proposal for the modernization of labour law, advocating the construction of a code system of “general provisions + sub-legal provisions”, the innovation of digital labour regulatory standards, and the promotion of the construction of international cooperation mechanisms, so as to contribute institutional wisdom to the global rule of law in the field of labour.
References
Lou Yu. Jurisprudential Obstacles and Relief of Occupational Injury Protection System in New Employment Format - From the Doctrine of “Incomplete Labour Relationship”[J]. Chinese and foreign law, 2024(3).
Feng Yanjun. The triple dilemma of codification of labour law[J]. Northern Law Journal, 2022(6).
JIANG Yongxin. A comparative study of the internal labour rules system of Chinese and French enterprises[J]. Perspective, 2018(4):79 - 80.
Shao Liuyi. Recovering Chinese labour law theory: intellectual reflection on the “de-publicisation” of labour law[J]. Open Times, 2024(5):126 - 143.
Nie Ping. Utilisation and Protection of Workers’ Personal Information in Recruitment: A Comparison of Information Collection Provisions under US Law[J]. Legal Discussion, 2022(4):158 - 160.
Zhang, Linlin. Advancing the Codification of the Labour Code with a Systemic Concept[J]. Law and Social Development, 2024(2):5 - 22.
Xie Zengyi. The transformation of the legal adjustment mode of labour relations in China[J]. China Social Science, 2017(2):123 - 144.
Yang Haonan. Labour Law Response to the Dilemma of Collective Bargaining in China: Insights from the Determination of Reasonable Bargaining Units in the United States[J]. Chinese and foreign law, 2020(2):540 - 559.
Lu Zhou. A comparative study of China’s Labour Law and Singapore’s Employment Law[J]. Employment and Security, 2019(1 - 2 up):29.
Yang Changfei. Comparative research and practice of labour law in Senegal[J]. China Labour, 2018(22):76 - 80
Zhou Yi. On the Similarities and Differences between the Basic Principles of Labour Law in China and France[J]. Law and Society, 2019(19):11 - 12
Li Haiming. On Workers in Labour Law[J]. Law Review, 2019, 37(2):125 - 136
Yi Zhenzhen. The impact of labour system on social co-innovation capacity - the transmutation of French labour law system as an example[J]. Journal of China Institute of Labour Relations, 2019, 33(3):98 - 106
Pei, Ruwen. Discussion on Issues Related to the Protection of Workers’ Rights and Interests--Review of Research on the Protection of Workers’ Rights and Interests[J]. Journal of China Institute of Labour Relations, 2019, 33(3):121 - 125
LIN Jia, ZHOU Xianri. The impact of labour form diversification on labour law and the paradigm innovation of labour law[J]. Chinese Law, 2019(6):126 - 144
Xu Danmeng. Analysis of the principle of effectiveness of labour regulations[J]. Journal of China Institute of Labour Relations, 2019, 33(4):95 - 103
Ban Xiaohui. The Construction of the Rules of Extraterritorial Application of Labour Law - Taking American Law as a Mirror[J]. Global Law Review, 2019, 41(5):116 - 135
Wang Zhaowen. The origin and content of the new labour law revision in France and the controversy it triggered[J]. French Studies, 2017(2):58 - 70
Ge Wenbo. French labour law reform: ‘Never give in to the lazy’[J]. World Knowledge, 2017(11):56 - 57
BAN Xiaohui. Systematic Construction of Extraterritorial Application of Labour Law under the Perspective of Codification[J]. Hebei Law, 2025, 43(3):116 - 132
Li Mengyun. The application of veil piercing theory in labour law in the context of multi-subject employment[J]. Journal of China Institute of Labour Relations, 2024, 38(1):116 - 125