Dispute resolution in the People’s Republic of China: the evolving institutions and mechanisms

Abstract

Since the imperial era, the Chinese population has developed a culture of resolving disputes amicably. In contemporary China, dispute negotiations, mediations and arbitrations are deemed less confrontational and more efficient – and therefore preferable – as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches. In the last decade, China has been experimenting with new forms of dispute resolution that combine ADR with other mechanisms, with a view to developing a ‘Mechanism for Pluralist Dispute Resolution’ (Duoyuanhua Jiufen Jiejue Jizhi, 多元化纠纷解决机制) (PDR). As a result of multiple initiatives, the idea of PDR is now widely used to encompass a broad range of dispute resolution activities. Based on a narrow interpretation, PDR refers to an integrated system where private and administrative actors and the state work together in resolving civil and commercial disputes. In this context, the goal is to provide more effective channels for disputants and optimize the use of limited judicial resources. In return, the state renders strong support for private dispute resolution through means such as codifying judicial confirmation of mediation agreements, offering support for arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards and establishing centres for litigation services or the interconnection of litigation and mediation within courts. In comparison, PDR in its broader sense acquires a political and social significance. It refers to the idea that, from the perspective of the authorities, all dispute resolution approaches are social control and management instruments that contribute to the prevention and resolution of social conflicts and disputes. In this context, PDR also involves government authorities (such