近几十年,随着大量的诉讼涌入法院,越来越多的人因诉讼带来的高成本和低效率而不断抱怨正义难以实现。回应公众批评,许多国家开始改革各自的民事诉讼制度,其中一个重要方面就是将仲裁、调解等非诉争端解决方法纳入司法程序,以迎合公众要求经济、快捷解决纠纷的要求。中国和英国采取两种截然不同的方式:中国的法官将调解员和审判者两种角色一肩挑;而英国的法官只是将需要调解的案件提交到法院之外的调解员或调解组织。尽管这两种方式在实践中均彰显出积极的效应,但它们以节约时间和成本为价值目标的实现路径及效果却不尽相同,各呈优劣。 In recent decades, with the influx of a large number of lawsuits into court, more and more people have been complaining about the unjust reality of justice due to the high costs and inefficiencies brought by litigation. In response to public criticisms, one of the important aspects of many countries’ reforms in their respective civil litigation systems is to include non-litigation-type dispute settlement methods such as arbitration and conciliation in judicial proceedings so as to cater to the requirements of the public for an economical and speedy resolution of disputes. China and the United Kingdom take two very different approaches: Chinese judges shoulder the dual role of mediator and trial judge, while English judges simply refer cases that need mediation to mediators or mediators outside the courts. Although both of these approaches show positive effects in practice, their path and effect of saving time and cost as the value goals are not the same, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.