| The issue of non-governmentalization of arbitration institutes has reached a conclusion in legislation and theory. The reason why this issue is discussed again in the contemporary ethos is the tendency of administration in practice. The nature of arbitration institutes in China has to be affected by the “situation” of China. Arbitration institutes have faced the crisis of the administrative alienation because of the social tradition of administrative promotion, which is shown in several aspects. In the view of personnel appointment, most of persons in arbitration institutes are executive staff. As to the case of finance, the income and expenditure of arbitration institutes are characterized as public finance. In the operation of arbitration, the arbitration institutes are built up according to the administrative divisions, and the management of cases has administrative attributes. The administrative alienation of arbitration institutes has been formed historically, so it also should be resolved in a historical way. In primary stage of the administrative alienation, arbitration institutes benefit a lot from the tendency of administration. Arbitration institutes not only profit from the high efficiency of administrative system in the arbitration efficiency, but also advance the social acceptance of arbitral awards with the help of the authority of administrative organizations. What’s more, the tendency of administration can also bring various administrative welfares to the staff of arbitration institutes. However, the arbitration institutes which have been aliened administratively appear to breach the arbitration principle of self-determination by parties, and to execute judiciary authority beyond the administrative power, which run counter to the obligation of the WTO agreements China bears. The first step to reform is to replace the tradition of “administrative guardianship” by “judicial supervision”, so as to cut off the relationships between the government and arbitration institutes. The second is to transfer the “administrative supervision” into “association supervision”， so that the arbitration association will safeguard the arbitration institutes. At the same time, the administrative management of arbitration should be internalized to promote the efficiency of arbitration. Besides, the intensity, dimension, and progress of reform should be properly held in the practice of the non-governmentalization of arbitration institutes. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号