Aspects of Arbitration Discourse: an Insight into China’s Arbitration Law

Maurizio Gotti

doi:10.14198/raei.2015.28.05

Authors

Maurizio Gotti

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2015.28.05

Keywords:

Arbitration discourse, China, Cultural constraints, Legislative drafting, Conciliation

Abstract

The formulation of legal norms is greatly conditioned not only by different juridical systems and drafting traditions, but also by specific linguistic features and socio-cultural aspects. The paper investigates this issue by taking into consideration provisions concerning commercial arbitration in an Asian country. The text selected for our analysis is The People’s Republic of China Arbitration Law 1994 (PRCAL, for short). This law can be considered a highly important step in the development of Chinese legislation in this field as it has had a great impact on international arbitration carried out by Chinese companies. International business exchanges with China have increased enormously over the last few years and even the recent economic recession has not slowed down this growth, making China the biggest Asian market in terms of import-export trade. As a natural consequence, this increase in business deals and contracts has brought about a rise in the number of trade disputes, with a consequent increase in arbitration proceedings. The aim of this paper is to examine the English version of PRCAL in order to highlight some of the linguistic and legal features present that betray specific cultural values. In some cases, the PRCAL text is compared to the United Nations Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the aim of offering a more detailed understanding of textual phenomena closely linked to differing legal and cultural traditions.

References

Abrams, Stan (2007): “Danone v. Wahaha: No sympathy”. At <http://www.chinahearsay.com/danone-wahaha-no-sympathy/>.

Bernini, Giorgio (1998): “Is there a growing international arbitration culture?”. In ICCA (International Council for Commercial Arbitration), International Dispute Resolution: Towards an International Arbitration Culture. Albert Jan van den Berg (Gen. ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 41-46.

Bhatia, Vijay K. (1993): Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.

Bhatia, Vijay K. and Christopher Candlin (2008): “Interpretation across legal systems and cultures: a critical perspective”. In Bhatia, Candlin and Engberg (eds.), 127-144

Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher Candlin and Sandy Wei (2001): Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts: A Preliminary Study. Research Group Report. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.

Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher Candlin, and Jan Engberg (eds.) (2008): Legal Discourse across Cultures and Systems. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Bhatia, Vijay K., Jan Engberg, Maurizio Gotti and Dorothee Heller (eds.) (2005): Vagueness in Normative Texts. Bern: Peter Lang.

Borris, Christian (1994): “Common Law and Civil Law: fundamental differences and their impact on arbitration”. Arbitration 60(2): 78-85.

Borris, Christian (1999): “The Reconciliation of conflicts between Common Law and Civil Law principles in the arbitration process”. In Frommel and Rider (eds.), 1-18.

Cao, Deborah (2008): “Is the Chinese legal language more ambiguous and vaguer?”. In Anne Wagner and Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahi (eds.), Obscurity and Clarity in the Law: Prospects and Challenges. Aldershot: Ashgate, 109-125.

Campbell, Lisbeth (1996): “Drafting styles: fuzzy or fussy?” ELaw. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 3(2). Available at <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n2/campbell.html>.

Cavasola, Pietro and Andrew G. Paton (1994): “Italy”. In Eijsvoogel, Peter V. (ed.), Evidence in International Arbitration Proceedings. London: Graham & Trotman, 165-174.

Chang, Wang Sheng (2001): “Formation of the arbitral tribunal”. Arbitration International 17(1): 401-410.

Corona, Isabel (2011): “Arbitration recontextualized”. World Englishes 30(1): 129-140.

David, Rene and John E. Brierley (1985): Major Legal Systems in the World Today. An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Law. London: Stevens and Sons.

Driedger, Elmer A. (1982): “Legislative drafting style: Civil Law versus Common Law”. In Jean-Claude Gémar (ed.), Langage du droit et traduction / The Language of the Law and Translation. Montreal: Linguatech / Conseil de la Langue Française, 63- 81.

Endicott, Timothy (2000): Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frommel, Stefan N. and Barry A.K. Rider (eds.) (1999): Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration: Old Issues and New Trends. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Glück, Ulrike and Falk Lichtenstein (2014): Arbitration in the People’s Republic of China. CMS Guide to Arbitration, Vol I. at <http://eguides.cmslegal.com/pdf/arbitration_volume_I/CMS%20GtA_Vol%20I_CHINA.pdf>.

Hill, Clare and Christopher King (2004): “How do German contracts do as much with fewer words?”. Chicago-Kent Law Review 79: 889-926.

Jarvin, Sigvard (1999): “Leading arbitration seats: a (mostly European) comparative view”. In Frommel and Rider (eds.), 39-61.

Keller, Perry (1994): “Sources of order in Chinese law”. The American Journal of Comparative Law 42(4), 711-759.

Levant, Ezra (2007): “Danone vs. Wahaha”. At <http://ezralevant.com/2009/08/danonevswahaha.html>.

Lew, Julian, Loukas Mistelis and Stefan Kröll (2003): Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Liao, Meizhen (2012): “Courtroom discourse in China”. In Tiersma and Solan (eds.), 395-407.

Mellinkoff, David (1963): The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Moser, Michael and Peter Yuen (2005): “The New CIETAC Arbitration Rules”. Arbitration International 21(3): 391-403.

Peerenboom, Randall (2002): China’s Long March toward Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Poscher, Ralf (2012): “Ambiguity and vagueness in legal interpretation”. In Tiersma and Solan (eds.), 128-144.

Potter, Pitman B. (2001): The Chinese Legal System: Globalisation and Local Legal Culture. London: Routledge.

Ross, Claudia and Lester Ross (2000): “Language and law: sources of systemic vagueness and ambiguous authority in Chinese statutory language”. In Karen Turner, James V. Feinerman and R. Kent Guy (eds.), The Limits of the Rule of Law in China. Washington: The University of Washington Press, 221-270.

Saleh, Samir (1992): “La perception de l’arbitrage au Machrek et dans les pays du Golfe”. Revue de l’Arbitrage 4: 549.

Sato, Yasubobu (2008): “Hybrid dispute processing in Japan: linking arbitration with conciliation”. In Bhatia, Candlin and Engberg (eds.), 53-74.

Tao, Jingzhou and Clarisse Von Wunschheim (2007): “Articles 16 and 18 of the PRC Arbitration Law: the Great Wall of China for foreign arbitration institutions”. Arbitration International 23(2): 309-325.

Tiersma, Peter (1999): Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tiersma, Peter and Lawrence Solan (eds.) (2012): The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trappe, Johannes (2003): “Beijing–Hamburg conciliation”. Arbitration International 19(3): 371-386.

Yifei, Lin (2012): “Judicial review of arbitration agreements in China”. Arbitration International 28(2): 243- 293.

Zhou, Jian (2006): “Judicial intervention in international arbitration: a comparative study of the scope of the New York Convention in U.S. and Chinese courts”. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 15(2): 403-455.