The study of civil justice system has been paid little attention in reform China although alternative methods of dispute resolution (ADR) are emerging towards a rapid growth of civil and economic disputes. Following a national legislation of the Arbitration Law of 1994, however, a few Chinese legal studies have examined the nature and features of Chinese arbitration institutions for resolving private commercial disputes within domestic political-legal structure of the PRC. To examine the popularity of the existing regime of Chinese arbitration, the present research aims to investigate the role of institutional arbitration, relative to extra-judicial mediation and commercial litigation in reform China. In addition, this study analyses the extent to which the Chinese authoritarian state h...[ Read more ]

The study of civil justice system has been paid little attention in reform China although alternative methods of dispute resolution (ADR) are emerging towards a rapid growth of civil and economic disputes. Following a national legislation of the Arbitration Law of 1994, however, a few Chinese legal studies have examined the nature and features of Chinese arbitration institutions for resolving private commercial disputes within domestic political-legal structure of the PRC. To examine the popularity of the existing regime of Chinese arbitration, the present research aims to investigate the role of institutional arbitration, relative to extra-judicial mediation and commercial litigation in reform China. In addition, this study analyses the extent to which the Chinese authoritarian state has embraced a regime change with international standards for private commercial arbitration under which foreign parties could seek redress when China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) was founded in 1956.

This study adopts qualitative research methods, with multiple applications of a single case study, a semi-structured interviewing, documentary review, and content analysis from various data sources. Due to its long history and importance of Chinese arbitration development more than a half century, this is worth making sense of a whole regime of Chinese arbitration over time in the study of CIETAC. Meanwhile, a number of Chinese and foreign arbitrators from designated law firms and representative offices working in Beijing and Hong Kong were interviewed.

Findings of this study suggest that Chinese arbitration system is unpopular, in terms of its caseload and amount of claims handled by CIETAC and China’s major local arbitration commissions. Possible explanations include popular uses of people’s courts and mediation committees for resolving civil and economic disputes; underdevelopment and unevenness of domestic arbitration institutions between richer urban and rural areas; and last the absence of ad hoc arbitration in the mainland. By looking into the process of domestic legalization towards an international arbitration regime, the last chapter concludes that the Chinese authoritarian state has embraced a regime change of state-centered arbitration with Chinese characteristics. In the case of CIETAC, it suggests that Chinese arbitration organizations are not an independent arbitral forum open to private investors within which allocation of financial resources and personnel are closely tied to central and local state control and influence.