File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/plar.12223
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85033804352
- WOS: WOS:000423394500010
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Mediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts
Title | Mediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Courtroom discourse Dispute resolution Rule formalism China |
Issue Date | 2017 |
Publisher | American 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? |
Abstract | Drawing 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/264160 |
ISSN | 2021 Impact Factor: 1.286 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.529 |
SSRN | |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | He, X | - |
dc.contributor.author | Li, L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Feng, Y | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-10-22T07:50:31Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-10-22T07:50:31Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 2017, v. 40, p. 326-341 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1081-6976 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/264160 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Drawing 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | American 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.ispartof | PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review | - |
dc.rights | This 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.subject | Courtroom discourse | - |
dc.subject | Dispute resolution | - |
dc.subject | Rule formalism | - |
dc.subject | China | - |
dc.title | Mediatory Versus Legalistic Discourse in Chinese Courts | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | He, X: xfhe@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | He, X=rp02358 | - |
dc.description.nature | postprint | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/plar.12223 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85033804352 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 295341 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 40 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 326 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 341 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000423394500010 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 3612476 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2020/034 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1081-6976 | - |