Consensus and Compulsion: The Extra-territorial Effect of Chinese Judicial and Specially-Invited Mediation in Common Law Countries

Jie (Jeanne) Huang
{"title":"Consensus and Compulsion: The Extra-territorial Effect of Chinese Judicial and Specially-Invited Mediation in Common Law Countries","authors":"Jie (Jeanne) Huang","doi":"10.1177/2753412x231222587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article conducts exhaustive research on case law in major common law jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US) regarding the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judicial mediation decisions (MTS). In contrast to the rich literature criticizing the systematic deficiency of Chinese judicial mediation where an adjudicator plays the dual role of mediator and judge in the same case and the consequent injustice to the parties, the deficiency is not an issue currently in recognition and enforcement of MTS in common law jurisdictions. Why is this so and what would be the future trend? Answering these questions, this article explores the recent expansion from judicial mediation to Specially-Invited Mediation at the people's courts in China and discusses whether the features of Specially-Invited Mediation impact the recognition and enforcement of MTS at the common law jurisdictions. It also addresses controversies on applicable law, challenges to the enforceability of civil liability clauses, debates on the finality of MTS, and recognition and enforcement of MTS under China's judicial assistance agreements, the Hague Choice-of-Court Convention, the Hague Judgments Convention, and the Singapore Mediation Convention.","PeriodicalId":479981,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Transnational Law","volume":"320 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Transnational Law","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2753412x231222587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article conducts exhaustive research on case law in major common law jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US) regarding the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judicial mediation decisions (MTS). In contrast to the rich literature criticizing the systematic deficiency of Chinese judicial mediation where an adjudicator plays the dual role of mediator and judge in the same case and the consequent injustice to the parties, the deficiency is not an issue currently in recognition and enforcement of MTS in common law jurisdictions. Why is this so and what would be the future trend? Answering these questions, this article explores the recent expansion from judicial mediation to Specially-Invited Mediation at the people's courts in China and discusses whether the features of Specially-Invited Mediation impact the recognition and enforcement of MTS at the common law jurisdictions. It also addresses controversies on applicable law, challenges to the enforceability of civil liability clauses, debates on the finality of MTS, and recognition and enforcement of MTS under China's judicial assistance agreements, the Hague Choice-of-Court Convention, the Hague Judgments Convention, and the Singapore Mediation Convention.
共识与强制:中国司法调解和特邀调解在英美法系国家的域外效力
本文对主要普通法司法管辖区(澳大利亚、加拿大、香港、新西兰、新加坡、英国和美国)有关承认和执行中国司法调解裁决(MTS)的判例法进行了详尽的研究。有大量文献批评中国的司法调解存在系统性缺陷,即裁决人在同一案件中扮演调解人和法官的双重角色,从而对当事人造成不公。为什么会这样,未来的趋势会是什么?为了回答这些问题,本文探讨了中国人民法院最近从司法调解扩展到特邀调解的情况,并讨论了特邀调解的特点是否会影响普通法司法管辖区对小额交易服务的承认和执行。报告还讨论了适用法律方面的争议、对民事责任条款可执行性的质疑、关于MTS终局性的辩论,以及根据中国司法协助协议、《海牙法院选择公约》、《海牙判决公约》和《新加坡调解公约》对MTS的承认和执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信