Chapter 4 provides a systematic overview of the legal framework governing mediation in China. It categorises mediation into different styles and types, such as evaluative and facilitative mediation, and discusses how these are applied within the Chinese legal context. The chapter explores the regulatory systems underpinning mediation, including the judicial interpretations provided by the Supreme People’s Court and local legislative efforts. A significant portion of the chapter is dedicated to analysing the latest developments and challenges in the legislation of commercial mediation in light of the Singapore Mediation Convention. The concept of ‘politically correct pragmatism’ is highlighted, showcasing how political correctness and pragmatic flexibility dynamically interact within mediation legal rules. This comprehensive review of mediation regulations provides readers with a detailed understanding of the Chinese ADR system, emphasising its unique characteristics and the interplay between state law and local practices.

The journey of mediation as a non-authoritative process into the court system has come full circle with one utterly different model emerging in contemporary times. As mentioned in the previous chapters, mediation has inspired hybrid judicial roles and settlement promotion and introduced consent as the foundation for many hybrid legal processes. Yet this hybridization has worked both ways, affecting mediation as well. Authority-based mediation is emerging as an advanced judicial process that generates public norms. This new sophisticated model for dealing with polycentric legal problems while preserving soft qualities of the process and keeping a narrow focus on a legal outcome is, in fact, a novel form of private adjudication. We describe this emergent form of mediation and its theoretical underpinnings.