引言调解被西方认为是“东方经验”。笔者曾经为此骄傲了多年,估计很多法律同仁有此同感,认为此“东方经验”即中国经验,至少是以中国经验为主。经过比较研究和实地考证,本文对此提出怀疑。众所周知,东方在地理上包括中国、朝鲜、韩国、日本等多个国家,中国也包括香港、澳门、台湾地区。中国周边的国家长期受中国以和为贵、“无讼”的儒家思想和传统文化的影响,都规定了民事纠纷调解(和解)解决的制度。但从调解制度的现状看,这一“东方经验”似乎要成为韩国经验、日本经验、台湾地区经验……而不太像是大陆的经验。而西方近三四十年快速发展起来的调解制度似乎也不逊色于东方经验。东西方发展调解制度的热情不分伯仲,但同时也都有各自的优势和弊端。东方调解具有丰富深厚的历史底蕴,非常注重调解技巧,而在具体的法律制度方面则稍逊一筹;西方在法律制度方面获得了全面的立法支持,但仍然欠缺调解的文化基础。 Introduction Mediation is considered by the West as “Eastern experience.” I have been proud of this for many years, it is estimated that many law colleagues share the same feeling that this “Eastern experience ” that is, China’s experience, at least based on Chinese experience. After a comparative study and field research, this article raised doubts. As we all know, the East includes geographically China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and many other countries. China also includes Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. The countries neighboring China have long been subject to China’s mediation and reconciliation system because of their influence on Confucianism and traditional culture of “no lawsuits.” However, judging from the current status of the mediation system, this “oriental experience” seems to be going to be the experience of South Korea, the experience of Japan, the experience of Taiwan ... and not much like the experience of the mainland. However, the mediation system developed rapidly by the West over the past three or four decades does not seem to be inferior to that of the East. Enthusiasm for developing the mediation system between the East and the West remains the same, but at the same time it also has its own advantages and disadvantages. Eastern mediation has rich historical background, attaches great importance to mediation skills, but lacks the specific legal system; Western has obtained comprehensive legislative support in the legal system, but still lacks the cultural basis of mediation.