Matthew S Erie
September 13, 2022
Full review
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac027.
- International Academy of the Belt and Road, Dispute Resolution Mechanism for the Belt and Road (Springer, 2016)
- Weixia Gu, Dispute Resolution in China: Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation, and Their Interactions (Routledge, 2021)
- Zhiqiong June Wang & Jianfu Chen, Dispute Resolution in the People’s Republic of China: The Evolving Institutions and Mechanisms (Brill, 2019)
Excerpt
In recent years, China has led a not-so-silent revolution in internationalizing its dispute resolution mechanisms, including its courts, arbitration commissions, and mediation bodies, in order to facilitate cross-border investment and trade. These advancements are startling, considering that, merely fifty years ago, China suffered from a kind of legal nihilism. As late as the 1970s, people’s courts in China were either dismantled or hyper-politicized in the face of the Cultural Revolution. In light of China’s legal history, in the past, states and firms conducting business with Chinese entities relied on primarily Anglo-American institutions (e.g., the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the London Court of International Arbitration, the New York and Delaware courts, etc.). However, the Chinese government has made it a priority to onshore disputes involving Chinese state agencies, state-owned enterprises, and private companies. These new Chinese mechanisms for resolving commercial and investment disputes include the much-discussed China International Commercial Court (CICC), “special courts” in Shenzhen and Shanghai, and “international” arbitration commissions that administer commercial and investor-state dispute settlement. Less publicized have been the gradual reforms to the people’s courts, which include more judicial training in foreign law and conflict of laws. Rounding out the picture, China has championed the Singapore Mediation Convention, as business mediation has become a mainstay across a number of Chinese industrial and service sectors. These developments are notable given that in China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the source of a higher-level normative order than state law, and because the CCP is imbricated with formal dispute resolution institutions, China’s normative pluralism is globalizing along with these institutions. All of this raises the question: Are Shenzhen and Xi’an the new Delaware and London?
