English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Deeply rooted in the Confucian philosophy of harmony, court conciliation conducted by judges in Chinese courtroom has played an important role in resolving civil disputes in China. However, severe criticisms against court conciliation have never been ceased. Critics generally attribute problems to the integration of mediation into adjudication and judges’ playing of dual roles as adjudicator and mediator. Sadly, little has been done to explore how judges’ dual roles in court conciliation are performed and changed, and how the performance and change of judges’ dual roles may affect justice and fairness in dispute resolution. This paper compares the similarities and differences of a judge’s role as an adjudicator and the role of a mediator, analyzes how judges’ dual roles are performed and changed through different patterns of information flow and information sharing, and discusses the impacts of judges’ role change and ways to resolve role conflicts. It is found that similarities between the two roles make it possible for judges in CC to play dual roles, but different role expectations give rise to role conflicts which may, to some extent, be dissolved through effective ways of information exchange.

Mission impossible? Judges’ playing of dual roles as adjudicator and mediator in Chinese court conciliation