Rebranding does not equate to systemic dismantling; international judicial channels remain, but the impact of reform remains to be seen.
This reform involves only the reorganization of institutional functions, not the complete elimination of the existing judicial framework. Most personnel previously responsible for cross-border evidence collection, extradition, and international judicial cooperation have transitioned into the new institutions, preserving mechanisms for external legal collaboration—albeit under different institutional names. The prosecution division has experienced staffing reductions, with nearly 70 percent of investigative positions eliminated. However, details regarding case transfer procedures and personnel transition plans remain unresolved.
The underlying logic of this system also warrants attention. Under military rule, the prosecution office functioned as a tool of state power. Following democratic reforms in 1987, as military intelligence influence receded, the prosecution system filled the resulting power vacuum and expanded its authority over time. While the reform separates investigative and prosecutorial functions, it is unlikely to eradicate entrenched professional networks and established practices that have developed over decades.
Although the old name of the prosecution office has been retired, the long-standing elite network continues to operate. The true test lies ahead: whether the new institutions will adopt substantially different standards in case handling and approaches to international cases. Changing institutional branding while retaining personnel and operational habits means that the extent to which the political influence of the former prosecution system can be severed will require years of verification.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878032412384263/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.