As the idea of diversified dispute resolution becomes common sense, the structural relations of different dispute resolution mechanisms have become the focus of practice reforms and theoretical controversies in China. The 60-year development of the “Fengqiao Model” has always focused on the overall design of the dispute resolution system, which provides a foundation and plenty of materials for understanding these structural relationships. Combined with the development of social theory, this paper summarizes a general structural theory of dispute resolution mechanisms based on the “Fengqiao Model.” This theory advocates that the structure of dispute resolution mechanisms is the outcome of the integration of state intervention, social self-regulatory, and their interactions with various dispute resolution mechanisms. It can be used to explain the formation and change of the dispute resolution system in China, the structural strain in recent years, the overall plan of structural adjustment since 2012, and the next strategic core of profound adjustment. It also can be used to explain why the “Fengqiao Model” is so persistent and widely applicable, and how the “Fengqiao Model” be converted from a local model to an overall requirement, showing the great meaning of adhering to and developing the “Fengqiao Model” at present.

Constructing the Chinese self-independent knowledge system of legal science is a great project to adapt Marxist legal science to the Chinese context and the needs of our times in the new era, a profound revolution in the field of legal science, a precursor and foundation for constructing a system of legal science with Chinese characteristics, an urgent need to train high-quality legal talents with both virtues and talents, and an inevitable requirement for promoting the Chinese path to the modernization of the rule of law. To carry out such a systematic project, it is imperative to focus on the seven basic principles and scientific methods that include adhering to the ideological guidance of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. The theory of the system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, which is the cornerstone for the development of the Chinese self-independent knowledge system of legal science, has provided a necessary and much-needed theoretical paradigm for the development of the Chinese self independent knowledge system of legal science, has led to the innovative development of legal theory with Chinese characteristics in the new era, and will continue to do it.

The diversified dispute resolution (DDR) in China is different from the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Western countries with respect to its fundamental cause and political, economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. To better understand the DDR, the academic community shall go beyond the superficial feature of “distributing the burden of litigation” of the ADR in Western countries and consider it as the basic institutional arrangement and regular governance practice of state governance. Furthermore, we can adjust and reorganize the DDR based on such understanding. Specifically, after understanding the general features of dispute resolution forms, we should mobilize, aggregate, integrate, and use the dispute resolution resources in a society to improve and expand non-litigation dispute resolution forms and increase the overall supply of dispute resolution resources. Understanding the real features of disputes in China and its specific demands for dispute resolution. guide or regulate the choice of dispute resolution forms for the parties to a dispute through reasonable system design, so that the dispute resolution demands and dispute resolution forms can be matched. In particular, the Communist Party of China (CPC) and Chinese governments should play the leading and organizing role in the DDR, to comprehensively improve the effectiveness of the “Pluralistic-Unity-Style” dispute resolution.

The proposition of a diversified dispute resolution mechanism is mainly to realize the reasonable diversion of cases and promote the substantive resolution of disputes. Under this framework, all dispute resolution mechanisms must strictly follow the basic judicial principles and norms and abide by the bottom line of justice in the subjects and procedure of “dispute resolution” in order to gain the trust of the concerned parties. It is necessary to fully activate and give full play to their own characteristics and advantages and carry out the equal and orderly competition in the “diversified mechanism” to ensure that the concerned parties’ right of free choice can be substantially expanded. As one of the components of the “diversified dispute resolution mechanism,” the administrative reconsideration system should have the dual aspects of judicialization and administerization. The two aspects are not in a diametric opposition or trade_x005f off relation, but rather, they merely differ in observation perspectives, zone of action and specific direction to such an extent without compromising their coexistence and reciprocal promotion. Only by the judicalization and administerization of the administrative reconsideration system can we get it out of the current dilemma and gradually turn it into the main channel to solve administrative disputes.

The release of the Opinions on Strengthening Legal Education and Legal Theory Research in the New Era (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions” ) is a milestone in the history of legal education since the founding of the People’ s Republic of China in 1949. Standing at a new historical starting point for exercising law-based governance on all fronts and advancing the rule of law in China, this document outlines new development goals for legal education and legal theory research in the new era from both short-term and long-term perspectives. It adheres to the guidance of XI Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and puts forward the principles of upholding and strengthening the overall leadership under the Communist Party of China, adhering to the scientific guidance of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, accomplishing the core task of economic development and serving the overall interests of the country, fostering virtue through education and cultivating talent with both moral quality and legal literacy, following the objective law, and integrating the underlying tenets of Marxism with China’ s realities and the fine traditional Chinese culture, thus establishing the principles for the new development of legal education and legal theory research in the new era. It proposes to strengthen top-level design and strategic arrangements, promote the reform and improvement of the law school system, accelerate the improvement of the legal education system, and innovatively develop the legal theory research system. Therefore, a new development landscape for legal education and legal theory research in the new era has been established. The Opinions clearly stipulates the leadership system, management system, and coordination mechanism for legal education and legal theory research, and creates a new development system for legal education and legal theory research in the new era.

Internet courts in the 1.0 era achieved initial success in “online trial” and facilitation of the people’s access to judicial services, yet lacked the particularity that special courts should have in terms of organization, cases and procedures, making them difficult to fulfill the function of governance of network society. Compared with rule and management, governance has the features of decentralization, broad scope, and co-construction of rules. Features of network society are in line with the structure of social governance theory. To fulfill their function of governance of network society, internet courts in the 2.0 era, as the integrator of multiple centers and cyberspace as well as the analyzer of internet rules, need to improve in terms of organization, cases and procedures: In terms of organization, consider upgrading internet courts to be intermediate courts and identifying them as cross-region courts in cyberspace; in terms of cases, redefine the essence and extension of “online cases” with elements including wholly cyberspace_x005f related civil and commercial dispute resolution, new business format management on internet platforms, and governance of data-related rights; and in terms of procedures, improve Internet courts’ case selection procedures, judgement effect extension procedures, investigation procedures for independent evidence collection of internet cases, and automatic enforcement procedures ensuring the instant enforcement of judgment, so as to promote a mature and complete legal framework for cyberspace governance.

The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward a scientific and systematic theory of the Chinese path to modernization, in which the modernization of the rule of law is both an integral part and a strong guarantee. Building a modern socialist country in all respects under the rule of law requires attention to the settlement of civil and commercial disputes. The separation of civil society and the political state, along with their mutual influence, has led to the development of diverse dispute-resolution mechanisms. Globalization has further accelerated their development and transformation. In face of the adjustments to the dispute resolution system amid the unprecedented changes of the century, China should complete the top-level design of the diversified settlement of civil and commercial disputes by deploying legislative and judicial resources to enhance the leading role of litigation in resolving these disputes. At the same time, China should continue to prioritize alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, improve the credibility of arbitration, and leverage the aggregating power of mediation, so as to serve the construction of the Chinese path to modernization.

The traditional legal education model based on the discipline system of “theoretical law + departmental law” overemphasizes professional subdivision, resulting not only in the separation of different disciplines from each other, but also in the narrow thinking mode, single knowledge structure, and weak practical ability of trained legal talent, who are therefore hardly adapted to the needs of the era, which are characterized as cross boundary social problems and comprehensive knowledge application. All in all, the training of high-quality interdisciplinary legal talents lags behind social reform and the practice of the rule of law. In the context of comprehensively promoting the development of the new liberal arts, developing the new liberal arts, i.e., deep cross-integration, has penetrated into the construction of the law discipline, broken through the inherent limitations of law knowledge, promoted the interdisciplinary development of law education, and helped cultivate the ability of law students to integrate interdisciplinary knowledge. The development of new law science should proceed step by step, from shallow to deep. It should follow the guidance of social needs, break down discipline barriers, innovate cross-integration mechanisms, transform and upgrade from the “small crossover” among various departmental laws within the law discipline to the “big crossover” between the law discipline and other disciplines, and transform from the innovation of research methods to the innovation of the structure of disciplines. The cultivation of inter disciplines should focus on emerging fields such as national security, artificial intelligence, and social governance.

With the continuous development of China’s market economic system， the arbitration judicial review system based on the Arbitration Law promulgated in 1994， including the dual-track review of foreign-related and domestic cases， and the dual-supervision on procedural and substantive matters， has shown some issues that need to be studied and solved in practice. On July 30, 2021, the Ministry of Justice officially announced the Arbitration Law of the People’ s Republic of China (Amendment) (Draft for Comment), which unified the provisions on setting aside domestic and foreign-related arbitrament, and partially revised the scope of judicial review. However, heated debate arose and many problems remained unsolved such as the setting of the scope of supervision on foreign-related arbitration cases, how to grasp the principles of procedural review, and how to place the substantive supervision after the dual-track systems were changed into unified ones. Based on the Draft for Comments, this paper analyzes several prominent issues at present, and puts forward suggestions such as expanding the criteria for identifying foreign-related factors, converging to the original supervision scope of foreign-related arbitration, adhering to the principle of procedural review, and permitting the parties concerned to agree on the scope of supervision to maximize respect for the autonomy of the will of parties, so as to build a judicial supervision mechanism for commercial arbitration better fitting into the era.

To cultivate high-quality rule-of-law talents, XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law must be fully carried out, the spirit of the Opinions on Strengthening Law Education and Law Theory Research in the New Era must be implemented, the law teaching system must be improved, and the paths of talent cultivation must be optimized. The first is improving the ideological and political education and legal professional ethics education, teaching the ideological and political courses and legal professional ethics courses well in line with the essence of “bringing out the facts and reasons,” and doing an excellent job in ideological and political theory teaching in all courses from the perspective of all persons, the whole process, and all-around education. The second is improving the multi-level law education and teaching system and quality certification system, supporting and developing legal vocational education, consolidating undergraduate law education, boosting graduate law education, and developing professional degree education in law. The third is improving the curriculum system for law majors, accelerating the construction of courses reflecting the achievements in the practice of state governance and administration in the new era, such as the science of intra-Party regulations, the science of oversight law, and social governance jurisprudence, and so on, exploring the availability of the characteristic new course “science of field law,” and setting up diversified major-oriented modules to accommodate a large number of new courses. The fourth is improving the practical teaching and cooperative education system, adapting to the new form and requirement of “internet + education” to innovate education and teaching methods and means, strengthening the cooperation between law schools and rule-of-law work departments and legal service providers, enhancing education through work practice, and improving the in-service education system for rule-of-law talents.

Legal textbooks are the primary carrier of the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system of law. They systematically present and reflect the development achievements of the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system of law, and directly determine the overall structural arrangement and priorities of law teaching. Overall, the dichotomization of legal textbooks into the sub-systems of basic law and departmental law has lagged behind the progress on socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, and the system of textbooks relying on this traditional academic division is also in need of further improvement and reform. “Law-related,” “jurisprudence-related,” and “rule-of-law-related,” the three relatively independent but closely linked sub-systems of legal textbooks can better reflect the current evolution of the rule of law system in China. China’ s legal textbook system should be improved in terms of promoting the development of the main textbooks on law, vigorously promoting the development of textbooks on emerging disciplines and inter-disciplinarity, and courageously innovating the content and form of textbooks.

Developing digital jurisprudence, strengthening the practical teaching of law, and developing a practical teaching system of digital jurisprudence in colleges and universities based on the new era and in line with the law of scientific development are major issues of reforming and developing higher legal education in contemporary China. Taking XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law as the fundamental guide, focusing on the global cutting-edge topic of comprehensive and profound cross-integration of digital technology and legal education, and proceeding in line with the general law of law experimental courses in colleges and universities, we discuss how to construct the experimental teaching system for digital jurisprudence courses, and put forward a set of new ideas. An experimental teaching system for digital jurisprudence courses replenishes and improves the traditional law teaching mode, and innovates the mode of law talent cultivation under the new social form and new educational environment.

The Central Committee of the Community Party of China with Comrade XI Jinping at its core has made strategic thinking and top-level design for Chinese legal education in the new era, put forward a series of new concepts, ideas and strategies that are epochal, iconic, and original, and created a scientific and modernized theory of Chinese legal education in the new era. The theory on Chinese legal education for the new era, as an important part of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, profoundly answers significant questions about the orientation, goal, status, relationship, management, and system of Chinese legal education in the new era, and guides us to build a leading country in legal education.

Legal research methods refer to a general term for disciplined and systematic procedures, approaches, means, techniques, and models used by researchers to acquire novel and reliable legal knowledge. Several theoretical debates on the originality of legal research methods go on as follows: Is one legal research method superior to another? Do legal research methods aim for methodological independence? Are legal research methods objective or subjective? Influenced by scientism, positivism is usually considered to be the only reasonable research method, but since law is different from science, only using positivist research approaches is insufficient for solving legal problems. Strictly speaking, a method that is appropriate for the research subject is a reasonable method. As one of the humanities and social sciences, law has similarities with other disciplines in terms of the scope of research; therefore, its research methods could be borrowed from other disciplines. However, law cannot ignore the development of its own unique research methods while retaining its advantages. Legal research methods are supposed to be objective because they should follow scientific standards and have objective arguments, but inevitably, legal research would be subjective and full of value judgments since it means subjective and creative activities of researchers. Of course, the choice of values should preferably be made in the context of value-freeness to ensure the organic combination of value-freeness and value judgment.

The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) pointed out that problems are the voice of the times, and answering the problems and guiding the solutions are the fundamental tasks of theories. To continually promote theoretical innovation on the basis of practice and to write a new chapter on adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, it is necessary to persist in problem orientation. Therefore, it is a requirement for the implementation of the guiding principles of the 20th National Congress of the CPC to engage in intellectual inquiry with respect to meta-jurisprudence, and, based on that, pursue the target of building an academic system of legal science with Chinese characteristics. There are two main types of problems in meta-jurisprudence. The first is ideological resources, which asks what kinds of ideas shape the direction, foresight, and preferences of legal scholars. The second is the analytic framework, which asks how to tell the different kinds of legal issues apart, finish building the system, choose the best ways to argue, and make strong arguments. Only by starting from the problems of meta-jurisprudence and adhering to the guidance of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, by combining China's specific rule-of-law practice with fine traditional Chinese legal culture, and by learning from international experience, can the mission of building an academic system of legal science with Chinese characteristics be achieved.

The Communist Party of China has attached great importance to legal education, made arduous explorations in the practice of advancing the Chinese revolution, development, and reform, and blazed a road of modernization and development of Chinese legal education. The socialist legal education system with Chinese characteristics develops on the basis of completely negating and profoundly criticizing the old legal education system, and establishing a new legal education system guided by the Marxist view of state and law; it is created and develops on the basis of learning from the Soviet Union model, in combination with China's specific conditions and independent exploration; and it is constantly improved and develops under the new historical conditions of reform and opening up and socialist modernization drive, and on the basis of meeting the needs of perfecting socialist democracy and strengthening socialist legal systems, and profoundly summarizing the positive and negative experience of socialist legal construction in China. The legal education with Chinese characteristics in the new era is guided by XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, based on the integration of the original aspirations and the views from the outside, through continuous innovation and development in implementing new ideas and establishing new patterns, offers a powerful talent guarantee and a theoretical support to promote the development of the rule of law in China, provides a strong impetus to transform a country rich in legal education resources into a country strong in legal education, and lays a solid foundation of the rule of law for promoting the development of a human community with a shared future and the creation of a new form of human advancement.

Innovative development of the legal theory research system requires strengthening research on the basic theory of law. Promoting research on the basic principles of Marxist jurisprudence is the fundamental premise for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law is the fundamental criterion for the innovative development of the basic theory of law of contemporary China in the new era, and the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times is the essential requirement for the innovative breakthrough of the basic theory of law of contemporary China.

Legal education and legal theory research are on the honorable mission of cultivating high-quality rule-of-law personnel and providing theoretical support for the rule of law in China, and play an important role in advancing the law-based governance in all fields. The Opinions on Strengthening Legal Education and Legal Theory Research in the New Era (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions” ) issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the General Office of the State Council in 2023 to meet the needs of legal education and legal theory research at present and in the future further clarifies the directions of legal education and legal theory research, and carries great importance for strengthening legal education, deepening legal research, improving the cultivation quality of rule-of-law personnel, and advancing law-based governance in all fields. The Opinions also puts forward new requirements for thoroughly implementing the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the CPC and XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, and continuously cultivating high-quality rule-of-law personnel.

Academic evaluation is the baton and wind vane for academic development, and the establishment of a scientific and authoritative evaluation system is crucial to establishing a robust academic research ecology. To purify the academic atmosphere, cultivate the academic ecology, and promote academic innovation, the General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued the Opinions on Strengthening Legal Education and Legal Theoretical Research in the New Era. It put forward precise requirements and made specific deployments to improve the scientific research assessment and evaluation system, which pointed out the direction for reforming the academic evaluation system in legal studies. It is necessary to grasp the historical trend, take the initiative to seek changes, shoulder our responsibility, address pain points and difficulties in the academic research evaluation system in an innovative way, and build an academic evaluation system and academic evaluation institutions in line with the characteristics of the discipline of law and the needs of the times, thereby promoting the prosperous development of legal studies.

Public interest litigation (PIL) with the public interest as the trial object is not only dispute settlement activity but also political activity via which the public participate in public affairs, whereby it is necessary to reflect particular political morality and ethics, and to obtain the jurisprudential support. The individualistic litigation mechanism is deeply influenced by liberalism, and the idea of self-determination of the parties and procedural guarantee contained in it has become the fetters on the development of the PIL system. The partially modified mode of paternalistic litigation still cannot solve the fundamental contradiction between public interest protection and public interest representation. The communitarianism represented by communalism and civic republicanism justifies the collective procedure from the perspective of community value and public space, especially the negotianism, which provides a brand new procedural idea, frame, and mode of judgment for PIL, but the abstractness of “public good” limits its theoretical value. The people-centered philosophy on development and the thought of a human community with a shared future provide a value basis and political ethics for China's PIL system in the new era. On this basis, reasonable absorbing of various political philosophies can help the PIL system to realize the values of litigation democracy, due process, litigation efficiency, etc.

The current civil public interest litigation system is based on Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China as the backbone with expansions of the public interest protection fields in specific laws. It overall focuses on the qualification of the subject of the litigation and the public interest protection fields, and neglects the establishment of substantive rules. In practice, the environmental civil public interest litigation would refer to the substantive rules applicable to the ecological and environmental damage compensation system, while other civil public interest litigations would refer to the substantive rules of tort liability under private law. The governance and non-litigation nature of civil public interest litigation cannot deny the application of the underlying logic of the right to claim. The legislation on public interest litigation should take into account both procedure and substance. Based on clarifying the governance authority of the procuratorial organs for the protection of public interest, the legislation on public interest litigation should provide for the interests of action in civil public interest litigation, the scope of claims, the justifiability of punitive damages, the allocation of the burden of proof, and other issues closely related to the substance.

The reason why the procuratorial organs can file public interest litigation under the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China is to empower the procuratorial organs' legal oversight in the form of litigation, intending to form a legal oversight mechanism between the procuratorial organs and administrative organs. Both the administrative public interest litigation and the procuratorial proposal are included in administrative litigation and thus depend on court judgments. In other words, the extent of oversight is limited under court judgments. Procuratorial organs shall apply the same legality review as the courts. The procuratorial organs shall properly draft the procuratorial proposal under the same criteria of judicial review and not exercise administrative discretion for the administrative organs. The criteria of administrative organs' performance of duties after-action review shall be whether the court is in favor of or against it.

The smooth development of procuratorial public interest litigation relates to the timing of the procuratorial power, the interaction between the procuratorial power and administrative power, and the procuratorial power and private rights. Regarding the filing of public interest litigation, the people's procuratorates shall not exercise power crossing the line, taking the principle of restraint as the fundamental requirement and goal, and fully coordinating with the nongovernmental actors and helping them develop. Regarding the relationship between the procuratorial power and administrative power, the essential differences between them should be clarified, and the extent and boundaries should be reasonably defined to avoid confusion and a mixture of powers. Regarding the relationship between the procuratorial power and civil rights, we should adhere to the idea of exercising public power to protect civil rights, pay attention to the balance between public interests and private interests, and avoid the excessive pursuit of public interests at the price of ignoring the protection of private interests.

In the face of massive collection and use of personal information in the era of big data, the prevalent cognitive and structural problems have undermined the foundation of personal information self-control. The characteristics and operational mechanisms of big data have limited the utility of such tools (principles) as notice-consent, purpose limitation, and data minimization. Efforts should be made to shift the paradigm from individual control to social protection. The procuratorial public interest litigation is an important mechanism to practice the social control paradigm. The publicity of personal information is the legitimate basis for procuratorial public interest litigation to intervene in personal information protection. Although notable results have been achieved in terms of procuratorial public interest litigation for personal information protection so far, there is still large room for improvement in terms of case type, scope of claims, litigation rules, and ownership of compensation. Although Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China has responded to the existing problems, the provisions are only roughly generalized ones and can hardly offer specific guidance to judicial practice. In future judicial practice, risk prevention should be treated as the main function of the system. Efforts should be made to find more sources of case clues, simplify antecedent procedures, actively explore preventive public interest litigation, and give full play to the exemplary and leading role of procuratorial public interest litigation. Efforts should also be made to further detail causes of action, avoid simplifying “infringement” into “harm,” implement the reversion of burden of proof, and establish sound supporting systems for punitive damages and compensation management.

When initiating public interest litigation, the procuratorates often face the dilemma of choosing between the model of administrative public interest litigation (APIL) and the model of civil public interest litigation (CPIL). However, only choosing either model has flaws and shortcomings. Both CPIL incidental to criminal action and that incidental to administrative action are also faced with many confusions and difficulties in concepts and implementation mechanisms. Given the direction of progress, the procuratorates should integrate the inherent institutional advantages of the model of APIL and the model of CPIL to develop an integrated model of procuratorial public interest litigation (PPIL) characterized by oneness and integrity. To this end, revising the dual legislative separation, where the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China separately regulate public interest litigation, is necessary. Formulating a unified “Public Interest Litigation Law” or “Procuratorial Public Interest Litigation Law” to establish an integrated PPIL model has become an inevitable trend.