중국공산당 중앙은 1955년부터 반혁명분자들을 숙청하게 되는데, 이 중에서 형벌로 처리할 수 없는 자들은 ‘노동교양’ 에 처하였다. 1957년 국무원은 행정법규 형식으로 노동교양제도의 법적 근거를 마련하였다. 문화대혁명 기간 동안, 노동교양제도는 폐지되었다가 1979년 <노동교양에 관한 보충규정>으로 부활되었다. 노동교양 대상범위는 확대되었고, 그 실시대상 지역도 대·중도시에서 현 및 농촌지역까지 확장되었다. 중국 공안부는 1982년 <노동교양 시행판법>을 반포하여, ‘교육, 감화, 구제’를 노동교양의 방침으로 삼는 등 구체적인 규정들을 두었다. 그럼에도 현행 노동교양제도는 여전히 몇몇 문제점들이 존재한다. 중국 <헌법>에 의하면 일체의 법률·행정법규와 지방성법규는 헌법에 저촉되어서는 안된다고 하였지만 <입법법>, <행정처벌법>등과 충돌된다. 중국이 가입한 <인 권과 정치권리에 관한 국제협약(ICCPR)>에도 위배된다. 중국형벌인 관제형이 3개월 이상 2년이하, 구역형이 1개월이상 6개월이하인데 비해, 노동교양은 1년 이상 최고 4년까지 처할 수 있기 때문에 그 징벌성이 형벌보다 높다. 절차에 있어서도 공안기관이 증거수집이 어렵거나 하면 노동교양을 처분하는 등 권한남용이 심한 편이다. 노동교양제도의 근거를 ‘법률’형식으로 해야하며, 궁극적으로는 이 제도를 폐지해야 중국이 지향하는 법치국가가 될 수 있을 것이다.

Purpose: Current study aimed at exploring the roles of system justification in the effects of consumers’ self-identification with the threatened social in-group on the within-domain versus across-domain consumption. It focused on whether there are positive effects of both of the self-definition and the self-investment on the in-group system justification, and also explored whether the system justification, in turn, could make positive effects on the consumption. Research design, data and methodology: The self-identification was approached in view of self-definition and self-investment when the in-group was threatened by members of their out group. The empirical study was performed with the single factor within-subject design based on the feeling of the consumers’ being threatened when the ingroup was criticized by the others. The in-group threatened was accessed from the memory of each of the undergraduate students participating in the empirical study by asking them to remember the events by which their important in-group was perceived to be threatened in their past life. Questionnaire data collected from the undergraduate students were used to verify research hypotheses by structural equation model in Amos 21.0 program. Results: First, the self-definition positively affected the within-domain versus acrossdomain consumption, but did not affect the in-group system justification. Second, the self-investment positively affected the in-group system justification. Third, the system justification made positive effects on the within-domain versus the across-domain consumption. Therefore, this article could contribute to the development of the theory related to compensatory consumption in the view that there could be the positive mediation roles of system justification in the effects of consumers’ self-investment to their in-group on the within-domain versus across-domain consumption when the in-group is threatened. Conclusions: The results of this study could give managerial implications to brand or product marketing managers. How to vitalize consumers’ self-definition with, and self-investment to, the threatened in-group is at issue to the marketers when consumers’ important in-group was threatened by others. By evoking the in-groupbased self-investment to consumers when the in-group was threatened, the marketers should increase the level of the system justification, and the marketers should promote the consumers to recognize that their products or brands are included into the within-self domain.