The orientation of the nature of arbitration institutions is one of the key problems in discussing the revision of arbitration law and the reform of arbitration institutions, which is impossible to be resolved properly without an accurate knowledge of the status quo of arbitration institutions. Based on the data collected through two national surveys carried out by Beijing Arbitration Commission, this article tries to draw a complete and nuanced picture of the status quo of China’s arbitration institutions. To particularize it, the data shows that the natures of the arbitration institutions in practice are diverse and there is a comparatively high percentage of arbitration commissions which are treated as institutions with quasi-governmental nature. There is also certain percentage of arbitration commissions with most of its commissioners held concurrently by local government officials rather than professionals in legal or commercial field, or with the head of the secretariat held concurrently by local government officials and the staff offered with tenure like civil servant. Meanwhile, about half of the arbitration institutions depend on fiscal appropriation for their full or part of treasury. In addition, while nearly half of the arbitration institutions prefer to promote arbitration by administrative means, there is still a large sum of arbitration institutions with very low case-load. As to the case handling, some arbitration institutions use its own personnel as arbitrators. All the aforementioned governmental features existing in the nature, personnel, financing and operation of arbitration institutions could be attributed to some direct factors. But according to the framework of state-civil society, the fundamental reason that accounts for the different features among arbitration institutions is the regional difference in the reconstruction of structure relationship between the state and the civil society. To reduce the governmental features unreasonably attaching to the arbitration institutions, we should take advantage of the force both from the state and the civil society so as to accelerate the adjusting of the relationship of the state and the civil society in the field of arbitration and facilitate the transformation of arbitration institutions. The transforming process of arbitration institutions will inevitably lead to the redistribution of interest among related parties which calls for the stance of favoring arbitration users and benefiting the public interest. |