Yedan Li, PhD, 

Researcher at the Department of Sociology 

of Bielefeld University (Germany) 

 DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017-7-1-172-196 

The literature on Alternative Dispute Resolution has already normatively 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 as derived 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’ organisational interests. Offsetting the advantages, those Chinese court-annexed mediation practices prevent disputants from gaining access to the official adjudication procedure. The author gives a theoretical review, and also provides the statistics, courts materials and data of the interviews. 

References 

Alexander N. Global Trends in Mediation. Alphen aan den Rijn, 2006. 

Alfini J.J. Trashing, Bashing, and Hashing it Out: Is this the End of Good Mediation. Florida State University Law Review, 1991, vol. 19. 

Ali S. The Jurisprudence of Responsive Mediation: An Empirical Examination of Chinese Peoples Mediation in Action. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 2013, vol. 45. 

Brown H., Marriot A. ADR: Principles and Practice. London, 2011. 

Cohen J.A. Chinese Mediation on the Eve of Modernization. California Law Review, 1966, vol. 54. 

David J. Options for Designing and Implementing a Court Connected Mediation System. In Sourdin T., David J., Scott M. (eds.). Court Connected Mediation: National Best Practice Guidelines. Sydney, 1994. 

Department of Justice the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Report of the Working Group on Mediation. Hong Kong, 2010. 

Fan Y. Cong Susong Tiaojie Dao «Xiaoshi zhongde Shenpan» (From Judicial Mediation to «the Vanishing Trial»). Law and Social Development, 2008, vol. 14. 

Fan Y. Susong Tiaojie: Shenpan Jingyan Yu Faxue Yuanli (Judicial Mediation: Experience and Theory). China Legal Science, 2009, vol. 6. 

Fu H., Cullen R. From Mediatory to Adjudicatory Justice: The Limits of Civil Justice Reform in China. In Woo M.Y.K., Gallagher M.E. (eds.). Chinese Justice Civil Dispute Resolution in Contemporary China. Cambridge, 2011. 

Goldberg S.B., Sander F.E.A., Rogers N.H. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes. New York, 2003. 

Halegua A. Reforming the People’s Mediation System in Urban China. Hong Kong Law Journal, 2005, vol. 35. 

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region People’s Republic of China. Interim Report of the Hong Kong Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform. Hong Kong, 2002. 

Hu J., Zeng L. Grand Mediation and Legitimacy Enhancement in Contemporary China – the Guang’an Model. Journal of Contemporary China, 2015, vol. 24.

Hu J. Grand Mediation in China. Asian Survey, 2011, vol. 51. 

Ingleby R. Court Sponsored Mediation: The Case Against Mandatory Participation. The Modern Law Review, 1993, vol. 56. 

Jagtenberg R.W., Klijn A. Customized Conflict Resolution: Court-Connected Mediation in the Netherlands 1999–2009. The Netherlands, 2011. 

Liebman B.L. A Return to Populist Legality? Historical Legacies and Legal Reform. In Heilmann S., Perry E. (eds.). Mao’s Invisible Hand. Cambridge, 2011. Lubman S. Mao and Mediation: Politics and Dispute Resolution in Communist China. California Law Review, 1967, vol. 55. 

McAdoo B., Welsh N. Court-Connected General Civil ADR Programs: Aiming for Institutionalization, Efficient Resolution and the Experience of Justice. In ADR Handbook for Judges. American Bar Association, 2004. 

Menkel-Meadow C. Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-Opted or the Law of ADR. Florida State University Law Review, 1991, vol. 19. 

Menkel-Meadow C. Exporting and Importing ADR: «I’ve Looked at Life from both Sides Now». Dispute Resolution Magazine, 2006, vol. 12. 

Minzner C.F. China’s Turn Against Law. American Journal of Comparative Law, 2011, vol. 59. 

Ng K.H., He X. Internal Contradictions of Judicial Mediation in China. Law & Social Inquiry, 2014, vol. 39. 

Nolan-Haley J.M. Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law. Washington University Law Quarterly, 1996, vol. 74. 

Nolan-Haley J.M. Mediation Exceptionality. Fordham Law Review, 2009, vol. 78. 

Office of the Leading Group for Judicial Reform. Yuwai ADR: Zhidu Guize Jineng (ADR Abroad: Systems, Rules and Skills). Beijing, 2012. 

Pel M. Referral to Mediation: A Practical Guide for an Effective Mediation Proposal. The Hague, 2004. 

Ryan E. ADR, the Judiciary, and Justice: Coming to Terms with the Alternatives. Harvard Law Review, 1999, vol. 113. 

Sanders F.E.A. Varieties of Dispute Processing, in Levin A., Wheeler R. (eds.). The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future. St Paul Minnesota, 1979. 

Sherman E.F. Court-Mandated Alternative Dispute Resolution: What Form of Participation Should be Required. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 1992, vol. 46. 

Silbey S.S., Merry S.E. Mediator Settlement Strategies. Law & Pol’Y., 1986, vol. 8. 

Sourdin T. Mediation in Australia: Impacts on Litigation. In Alexander N. (ed.). Global Trends in Mediation. Alphen aan den Rijn, 2006. 

Sourdin T. Five Reasons Why Judges should Conduct Settlement. 37 Monash University Law Review, 2011, vol. 37. 

The SPC. Press Conference About the Adoption of the Case Filing Registration System. 2015 (http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/qyxwfbh/Document/1457392/1457392_1. htm). 

Waye V., Xiong P. The Relationship between Mediation and Judicial Proceedings in China. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 2011, vol. 6. 

Welsh N.A. The Current Transitional State of Court-Connected ADR. Marquette Law Review, 2012, vol. 95. 

Woolf H. Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales. London, 1996. 

Yu L. Jiufen Jiejue Jizhi Gaige Yanjiu Yu Tansuo (Study and Exploration of Dispute Resolution Institutions). Beijing, 2011. 

Information about the author 

Yedan Li (Bielefeld, Germany) – PhD, Researcher at the Department of Sociology of Bielefeld University (Universitätsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld; e-mail: liyedan1@ gmail.com). 

Recommended citation 

Yedan Li. From «Access to Justice» to «Obstacles to Justice»? Practical Learning of Judicial Mediation in China. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2017, no. 1, p. 172–196. (In Russian) DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017-7-1-172-196