File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Mediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts

TitleMediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts
Authors
KeywordsCourtroom discourse
Dispute resolution
Rule formalism
China
Issue Date2017
PublisherAmerican Anthropological Association for Association for Political and Legal Anthropology. The Journal's web site is located at https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15552934
Citation
PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 2017, v. 40, p. 326-341 How to Cite?
AbstractDrawing from detailed courtroom discourses on divorce cases in China, this article provides a micro‐level comparison between two styles of case handling: mediatory and legalistic. The two styles differ in discourse multiplicity, discourse interchange, interruption, and dispute processing. It finds that in terms of dispute resolution, the mediatory style seems to fare better than the legalistic style. One major reason for the difference is that the legalistic style tends to suppress rather than uncover what truly matters for the litigants. The mediatory style also seems to better fit the cultural expectation of suburban and rural China. The findings compel reconsideration of the extent to which rule formalism in transitional China should be promoted.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/264160
ISSN
2019 Impact Factor: 0.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.889
SSRN
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHe, X-
dc.contributor.authorLi, L-
dc.contributor.authorFeng, Y-
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-22T07:50:31Z-
dc.date.available2018-10-22T07:50:31Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationPoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 2017, v. 40, p. 326-341-
dc.identifier.issn1081-6976-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/264160-
dc.description.abstractDrawing from detailed courtroom discourses on divorce cases in China, this article provides a micro‐level comparison between two styles of case handling: mediatory and legalistic. The two styles differ in discourse multiplicity, discourse interchange, interruption, and dispute processing. It finds that in terms of dispute resolution, the mediatory style seems to fare better than the legalistic style. One major reason for the difference is that the legalistic style tends to suppress rather than uncover what truly matters for the litigants. The mediatory style also seems to better fit the cultural expectation of suburban and rural China. The findings compel reconsideration of the extent to which rule formalism in transitional China should be promoted.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAmerican Anthropological Association for Association for Political and Legal Anthropology. The Journal's web site is located at https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15552934-
dc.relation.ispartofPoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review-
dc.rightsThis is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 2017, v. 40, p. 326-341, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12223.-
dc.subjectCourtroom discourse-
dc.subjectDispute resolution-
dc.subjectRule formalism-
dc.subjectChina-
dc.titleMediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailHe, X: xfhe@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHe, X=rp02358-
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/plar.12223-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85033804352-
dc.identifier.hkuros295341-
dc.identifier.volume40-
dc.identifier.spage326-
dc.identifier.epage341-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000423394500010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.ssrn3612476-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2020/034-
dc.identifier.issnl1081-6976-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats