Regulating Enterprise In China/China Dispute Resolution

Best books on China

The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society has come out with a report [link no longer exists] entitled, Regulating Enterprise: The Regulatory Impact on Doing Business in China.

The report is described as follows:

This special report adopts an interdisciplinary, socio-legal approach to reveal the actual encounter between law and the social environment, exploring problems of implementation, and the implications for China’s future policy initiatives and economic development. Collectively, the briefs demonstrate that while China’s transition to a market economy governed by the rule of law is far from complete, the dynamic reform process is, on the whole, producing a more secure and transparent environment for investment.

It consists of the following chapters, written by the following people:

Introduction: Randall Peerenboom
Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
Policy Brief 1: Andrew Mertha
Recent Policy Changes in China’s Real Estate Sector
Policy Brief 2: Lou Jianbo
The Making of China’s Corporate Bankruptcy Law
Policy Brief 3: Terence C. Halliday
Competition Policy and Law
Policy Brief 4: Mark Williams
Development of a Legal and Policy Framework on Competition
Policy Brief 5: Peng Xiaohua
Labour Law: Trends and Practices in China
Policy Brief 6: James Zimmerman
Courts as Legislators
Policy Brief 7: Randall Peerenboom
The Impact of the World Trade Organization on the Chinese Legal System
Policy Brief 8: Yuka Kobayashi

The Foundation has also come out with a report entitled, Developments in Dispute Resolution in China, described as follows:

There have been dramatic changes in the nature and incidence of disputes, conflicts, and social disturbances, and the mechanisms for addressing them over the last twenty-five years in China. Drawing on recent empirical work, these policy briefs and reports examine the ways conflicts are addressed across a range of public and private fora, while exploring the development and limitations of mechanisms that seek to address citizen complaints and concerns. The briefs shed light on ongoing debates concerning the role of law and dispute resolution with respect to economic development (efficiency) and social justice (equity), and provide feasible policy recommendations for enhancing both justice and efficiency.

This report consists of the following:

Dispute Resolution in China: Patterns, Causes and Prognosis
Report: Randall Peerenboom and He Xin
Constitutional Conflict and the Role of the NPC
Policy Brief 1: Wang Zhenmin
China Labour Dispute Resolution
Policy Brief 2: Ron Brown
The Enforcement of Commercial Judgments in China
Policy Brief 3: He Xin
Shareholders’ Litigation and Anti-Dumping Investigation in China
Policy Brief 4: Wang Jiangyu
CIETAC as a Forum for Resolving Business Disputes
Policy Brief 5: Cao Lijun
Popular Attitudes Towards Dispute Processing in Urban and Rural China
Policy Brief 6: Ethan Michelson

I confess I have yet to read either report, but because both are written by such highly regarded China law scholars, I have no doubt both will be well worth the read. I fully intend to read both of them, but in the meantime, I would love to hear back from anyone who reads either.

4 responses to “Regulating Enterprise In China/China Dispute Resolution”

  1. I also haven’t read either report, and I am not doing much work in China any more, so I don’t know if I will take the time to read them later or not. But I am wondering what their various articles or chapters may be saying about not only the policy side of things but also about how the actual institutions (for dispute settlement, conflict resolution or for competition law, or for oversight and monitoring of intellectual property issues and etc. etc.) and their practical institutional or inter/multi- institutional mechanisms within the state apparatus both at central level and with the decentralized sub-national levels are working or are not working, or may have been developed… or what plans may exist to develop them in the future in terms of their overall capacity-building, staffing, training, systems, computerization and etc.. Since very often it’s practical institutions on the ground and how they work or fail to work on a day to day basis within any given policy area that end up making or breaking the intended policies (for either efficiency or for equity). And there is no reason to believe, in fact quite the contrary, that this would be any less true in China.

  2. I did read Mr. Andrew Mertha’s policy brief on enforcement of intellectual property rights in China,and I have no doubt that he has done substantial research on administrative enforcement of IP protection with discussions on the structure, interrelationship among officials and different departments at provincial level. However, I saw that the source he quoted are not recent works, and actually the majority has been spent on talking about the subtle relationship exit in China’s bureaucratical system in copyright protection and enforcement area. Anyone who has spend more than five years doing business in China will know that, more or less. I couldn’t see any discussion on the fresh progress achieved in IPP in China, and other IP areas like trademark protection. At last, I couldn’t find the published date of Mr. Mertha’s report, may be someone will show me later.

  3. To Stephen Kwok
    The point of the piece is, of course, to help people who HAVEN’T had the “more than five years” experience doing business in China. If one still needs to refer to a policy brief after a half-decade in China, one should probably spend a little time in the field instead of at Sanlitun or on Maoming Lu.
    As for more recent work, I would delighted to be made aware of other books or articles that look at IPR as a bureaucratic politics issue. If you know of such work, please do let me know, as I would like to update my own knowledge. Apart from a forthcoming book by Martin Dimitrov that promises to be a step forward in that direction, the field is pretty thin.
    Finally, I realize that China is making progress, but when agencies are still debating whether it might be just as good or even better to provide a prize instead of a patent, it seems to be a case of “plus ca change…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *