Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:15:09.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From “Access to Justice” to “Barrier to Justice”? An Empirical Examination of Chinese Court-Annexed Mediation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

Yedan LI
Yedan LI*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has argued for the general advantages of courts’ providing mediation services. However, courts’ involvement in mediation cannot always be justified by those advantages, unless (1) the mediation process is a consensual procedure based on party autonomy and (2) where the initiation is mandatory, the courts’ allocation of cases is justified both by the public interest and a case selection system. In this context, this article empirically tests whether the established arguments from ADR theory can be applied to justify all Chinese court-annexed mediation practices. This study provides a negative answer, owing to the fact that some Chinese court-annexed mediation practices found in the fieldwork aim mainly at clearing dockets and achieving case management for the courts’ organizational interests. Offsetting the advantages, those Chinese court-annexed mediation practices prevent disputants from gaining access to the official adjudication procedure.

Keywords

ADRcourt-annexed mediationChinese case-filing mediationChinese court
Type
Research Article
Information
Asian Journal of Law and Society , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , November 2016 , pp. 377 - 397
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Yedan Li is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Faculty of Sociology of Bielefeld University. She received her PhD in law at the University of Amsterdam in 2015. An earlier version of this paper was published at the Call-for-Paper session, “Research in Progress on East Asian Law and Society,” organized by the Section on East Asian Law and Society (EALS Section) of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) on January 10, 2016 at the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting in New York. The author is grateful to Professor Setsuo Miyazawa, the 2015 Chair of the EALS Section, Professor Robert Leflar, Chair of the Selection Committee, and Professors Donald Clarke, Eric Feldman, and Rachel Stern for their helpful comments. An early version of this paper was also presented at the European China Law Studies Association (ECLS) conference held in Cologne in 2015, and it benefited from the discussions there. The author appreciates editorial assistance from the journal’s executive office as well. Last but not the least, the author thanks the Chinese judges who kindly arranged the fieldwork for the study. Correspondence to Yedan Li, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Universitatsstrasse 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. E-mail address: liyedan1@gmail.com.

References

Alexander, Nadja (2006) Global Trends in Mediation, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Alfini, James J. (1991) “Trashing, Bashing, and Hashing it Out: Is This the End of Good Mediation.” 19 Florida State University Law Review 47–76.Google Scholar
Ali, Shahla (2013) “The Jurisprudence of Responsive Mediation: An Empirical Examination of Chinese Peoples Mediation in Action.” 45 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Henry, & Marriot, Arthur (2011) ADR: Principles and Practice, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jerome Alan (1966) “Chinese Mediation on the Eve of Modernization.” 54 California Law Review 1201–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Jennifer (1994) “Options for Designing and Implementing a Court Connected Mediation System,” in T. Sourdin, J. David, & M. Scott, eds., Court Connected Mediation: National Best Practice Guidelines, Sydney: University of Technology, 1–744.Google Scholar
Department of Justice, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2010) Report of the Working Group on Mediation, Hong Kong: Department of Justice, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
Fan, Yu (2008) “Cong Susong Tiaojie Dao ‘Xiaoshi zhongde Shenpan’” [“From Judicial Mediation to ‘the Vanishing Trial’”]. 14 Law and Social Development 60–9.Google Scholar
Fan, Yu (2009) “Susong Tiaojie: Shenpan Jingyan Yu Faxue Yuanli” [“Judicial Mediation: Experience and Theory”]. 6 China Legal Science 128–37.Google Scholar
Fu, Hualing, & Cullen, Richard (2011) “From Mediatory to Adjudicatory Justice: The Limits of Civil Justice Reform in China,” in M.Y.K. Woo & M.E. Gallagher, eds., Chinese Justice Civil Dispute Resolution in Contemporary China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 25–57.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Stephen B., Sander, Frank E.A. & Rogers, Nancy H. (2003) Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes, New York: ASPEN.Google Scholar
Halegua, Aaron (2005) “Reforming the People’s Mediation System in Urban China.” 35 Hong Kong Law Journal 715–750.Google Scholar
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region People’s Republic of China (2002) Interim Report of the Hong Kong Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region People’s Republic of China.Google Scholar
Hu, Jieren (2011) “Grand Mediation in China.” 51 Asian Survey 1065–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Jieren, & Zeng, Lingjian (2015) “Grand Mediation and Legitimacy Enhancement in Contemporary China—the Guang’an Model.” 24 Journal of Contemporary China 43–63.Google Scholar
Ingleby, Richard (1993) “Court Sponsored Mediation: The Case against Mandatory Participation.” 56 The Modern Law Review 441–451.Google Scholar
Jagtenberg, Robert Wandert, & Klijn, Albert (2011) Customized Conflict Resolution: Court-Connected Mediation in the Netherlands 1999–2009, The Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands Council for the Judiciary.Google Scholar
Liebman, Benjamin L. (2011) “A Return to Populist Legality? Historical Legacies and Legal Reform,” in S. Heilmann & E. Perry, eds., Mao’s Invisible Hand, Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 165–200.Google Scholar
Lubman, Stanley (1967) “Mao and Mediation: Politics and Dispute Resolution in Communist China.” 55 California Law Review 1284–11359.Google Scholar
McAdoo, Barbara, & Welsh, Nancy (2004) “Court-Connected General Civil ADR Programs: Aiming for Institutionalization, Efficient Resolution and the Experience of Justice,” in ADR Handbook for Judges, American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie (1991) “Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-Opted Or the Law of ADR.” 19 Florida State University Law Review 1–46.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie (2006) “Exporting and Importing ADR: ‘I’ve Looked at Life from both Sides Now’.” 12 Dispute Resolution Magazine 5–8.Google Scholar
Minzner, Carl F. (2011) “China’s Turn Against Law.” 59 American Journal of Comparative Law 935–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, Kwai Hang, & He, Xin (2014) “Internal Contradictions of Judicial Mediation in China.” 39 Law & Social Inquiry 285–312.Google Scholar
Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline M. (1996) “Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law.” 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47–102.Google Scholar
Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline M. (2009) “Mediation Exceptionality.” 78 Fordham Law Review 1247–1264.Google Scholar
Office of the Leading Group for Judicial Reform (2012) Yuwai ADR: Zhidu Guize Jineng [ADR Abroad: Systems, Rules and Skills], Beijing: China Legal Publishing House.Google Scholar
Pel, Machteld (2004) Referral to Mediation: A Practical Guide for an Effective Mediation Proposal, The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Ryan, Erin (1999) “ADR, the Judiciary, and Justice: Coming to Terms with the Alternatives.” 113 Harvard Law Review 1851–1875.Google Scholar
Sanders, Frank E.A. (1979) “Varieties of Dispute Processing,” in A. Levin & R. Wheeler, eds., The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, St Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 65–87.Google Scholar
Sherman, Edward F. (1992) “Court-Mandated Alternative Dispute Resolution: What Form of Participation Should be Required.” 46 Southern Methodist University Law Review 2079–22112.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan S., & Merry, Sally E. (1986) “Mediator Settlement Strategies.” 8 Law & Policy 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sourdin, Tania (2006) “Mediation in Australia: Impacts on Litigation,” in N. Alexander, ed., Global Trends in Mediation, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 37–63.Google Scholar
Sourdin, Tania (2011) “Five Reasons Why Judges Should Conduct Settlement.” 37 Monash University Law Review 145–170.Google Scholar
The SPC (2015) “Press Conference About the Adoption of the Case Filing Registration System,” online <http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/qyxwfbh/Document/1457392/1457392_1.htm> (last accessed 6 April 2016).+(last+accessed+6+April+2016).>Google Scholar
Waye, Vicki, & Xiong, Ping (2011) “The Relationship between Mediation and Judicial Proceedings in China.” 6 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Nancy A. (2012) “The Current Transitional State of Court-Connected ADR.” 95 Marquette Law Review 873–886.Google Scholar
Woolf, Harry (1996) Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales, London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Yu, Lingyu (2011) Jiufen Jiejue Jizhi Gaige Yanjiu Yu Tansuo [Study and Exploration of Dispute Resolution Institutions], Beijing: People’s Court Press.Google Scholar