Which is the key reason for judges in China to prefer mediation over adjudication?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Examining the question about why judges in China tend to favor mediation over adjudication, we should weigh each option in turn.
Option 1: 'Mediation saves time' While time savings is a valid practical benefit of mediation in many contexts, the question asks for the key reason judges prefer mediation. Time efficiency supports mediation, but it does not fully capture the deeper motivation related to judicial philosophy and social goals in China.
Option 2: 'The law is too complicated and it's easier to mediate' This is a claim about the perceived difficulty of the legal system. Although complexity can push parties toward informal solutions, it is not typically framed as the central reason judges advocate for mediation, which emphasizes broader social considerations beyond mere navigational ease.
Option 3: 'Judges prefer harmony over conflict' This option centers on the cultural and policy aim of maintaining social harmony, a well-documented motive in Chinese judicial practice. While still relevant, this answer focuses on the normative objective rather than a direct practical safeguard; it is commonly cited as a rationale for preferring dispute resolution approaches that keep parties out of adversarial litigation.
Option 4: 'Mediation is safer for them' This choice suggests a protective rationale—that mediation minimizes risks to judges, such as public scrutiny, reputational costs, or potential contempt in court floors. In many contexts, advocates of mediation argue that it reduces the adversarial pressures and procedural risks inherent in formal adjudication for the judges and the court system, aligning with a key perceived safety and system integrity benefit.
In sum, among the provided options, the claim that 'Mediation is safer for them' highlights a pragmatic consideration for judges: steering disputes toward a process that lowers risk to judges and the judiciary, including reputational and procedural dangers associated with contentious litigation. 
The other options emphasize practical time savings or broad cultural goals, which, while relevant, do not single out safety or risk mitigation as clearly the core reason in this context. Hence, the option asserting safety for judges presents a distinctive justification tied to the judiciary’s institutional risk management in mediation,
which aligns with the given correct answer in the provided data.

Still overwhelmed by exam stress? You've come to the right place!

Questions

SOCI140K_FA25_A00 final exam- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler