Comparative legal analysis reveals flaws in judicial practices regarding mediation clauses and arbitral proceedings, suggesting a new three-tiered review framework.
As a core component of multi-tiered dispute resolution agreements, the validity of mediation clauses prior to arbitration agreement in China faces dual challenges of legislative ambiguity and judicial inconsistency. Through comparative legal analysis and case studies, this paper reveals that current judicial practices adopt an extreme "all-or-nothing approach" when reviewing such clauses. yet adjudicatory standards remain highly fragmented, undermining judicial credibility and contradicting party autonomy. To address these issues, this study transcends the limitations of traditional jurisdictional theories by introducing the concept of "admissibility" and proposing a three-tiered review framework encompassing separability, enforceability, and practical significance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenghui Lyu (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: