中国社会纠纷的源头治理

IF 1.7 2区社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES

Critical Asian Studies Pub Date : 2023-04-29 DOI:10.1080/14672715.2023.2196991

Jieren Hu, Yin-Chuan Wu

{"title":"中国社会纠纷的源头治理","authors":"Jieren Hu, Yin-Chuan Wu","doi":"10.1080/14672715.2023.2196991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented by Chinese courts called, “Source Governance of Social Disputes” (SGSD). Differing from existing extralegal means of dispute resolution, SGSD aims to bring courts back to the center of dispute resolution by pre-emptively intervening in dispute-prone processes via technology-based mechanisms. However, this has generated two pitfalls. Although preemptive repression can be adopted by deploying digital technologies to impose mediation on people and persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":46839,"journal":{"name":"Critical Asian Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"354 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Source Governance of Social Disputes in China\",\"authors\":\"Jieren Hu, Yin-Chuan Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14672715.2023.2196991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented by Chinese courts called, “Source Governance of Social Disputes” (SGSD). Differing from existing extralegal means of dispute resolution, SGSD aims to bring courts back to the center of dispute resolution by pre-emptively intervening in dispute-prone processes via technology-based mechanisms. However, this has generated two pitfalls. Although preemptive repression can be adopted by deploying digital technologies to impose mediation on people and persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"354 - 376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2023.2196991\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2023.2196991","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了中国法院实施的一种新的纠纷解决机制——“社会纠纷源头治理”(SGSD)的特点和局限性。与现有的法外争议解决方式不同，SGSD旨在通过基于技术的机制先发制人地干预容易发生争议的程序，从而将法院带回争议解决的中心。然而，这产生了两个陷阱。虽然先发制人的镇压可以通过使用数字技术对人们施加调解并说服他们做出妥协，但这种技术部署总体上未能解决社会纠纷的根本原因。此外，SGSD引入了新的技术滥用风险，这可能迫使诉讼当事人接受调解而不是裁决，导致公众对中国法律制度的信心受到侵蚀，并削弱政权的合法性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Source Governance of Social Disputes in China

ABSTRACT This article examines the features and limits of a new dispute resolution mechanism implemented by Chinese courts called, “Source Governance of Social Disputes” (SGSD). Differing from existing extralegal means of dispute resolution, SGSD aims to bring courts back to the center of dispute resolution by pre-emptively intervening in dispute-prone processes via technology-based mechanisms. However, this has generated two pitfalls. Although preemptive repression can be adopted by deploying digital technologies to impose mediation on people and persuade them to make compromises, such technological deployment by and large fails to resolve the root causes of social disputes. Additionally, SGSD introduces new risks of technological abuse which may coerce litigants to accept mediation instead of adjudication, causing an erosion of public confidence in the Chinese legal system and a weakening of regime legitimacy.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

3.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Asian Studies is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that welcomes unsolicited essays, reviews, translations, interviews, photo essays, and letters about Asia and the Pacific, particularly those that challenge the accepted formulas for understanding the Asia and Pacific regions, the world, and ourselves. Published now by Routledge Journals, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Critical Asian Studies remains true to the mission that was articulated for the journal in 1967 by the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars.