File Download
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Financial dispute prevention and resolution in China: synthesizing global experience

TitleFinancial dispute prevention and resolution in China: synthesizing global experience
Authors
KeywordsFinancial Crisis
Dispute Resolution
Financial Regulation
Chinese Law
Comparative Study
Issue Date2011
Citation
The 2011 Annual Meeting of the Asian Law and Economics Association (AsLEA), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 8-9 July 2011. How to Cite?
AbstractIn light of the recent global financial crisis, this article aims to critically examine China’s structure of financial dispute prevention and institutional dispute resolution mechanisms, and based on the results of such examination, set out suggested reform proposals for China. At present, in relation to financial dispute prevention through regulatory oversight, China adopts a traditional sectoral system of financial regulation, which has exhibited some limitations in meeting the regulatory challenges in a rapidly changing market. Its present system of financial dispute resolution similarly consists of segmented systems of arbitration, mediation and direct negotiation with financial institutions. In quest of a solution to the challenge of regulatory limitation and strengthened financial dispute resolution capacity, a comparative analysis is conducted of the financial regulatory and dispute resolution regimes in some advanced economies including the US, the UK and Australia, each of which is representative of a distinct regulatory model. In examining these overseas experiences for guidance, regard is given not only to their objective advantages and disadvantages, but also to the local conditions in China. It is concluded that the US regulatory model merits consideration in the short term, and with the further growth of China’s financial markets in the long run, the Australian model of both financial regulation and dispute resolution provides the preferred direction for reform.
DescriptionParallel Session: Court and Alternative Dispute Resolutions
Program and Papers of the Conference at: http://www.sef.hku.hk/aslea2011/private/Program%20v20.pdf
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147024

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Hen_US
dc.contributor.authorAli, S-
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-23T05:53:50Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-23T05:53:50Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe 2011 Annual Meeting of the Asian Law and Economics Association (AsLEA), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 8-9 July 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147024-
dc.descriptionParallel Session: Court and Alternative Dispute Resolutions-
dc.descriptionProgram and Papers of the Conference at: http://www.sef.hku.hk/aslea2011/private/Program%20v20.pdf-
dc.description.abstractIn light of the recent global financial crisis, this article aims to critically examine China’s structure of financial dispute prevention and institutional dispute resolution mechanisms, and based on the results of such examination, set out suggested reform proposals for China. At present, in relation to financial dispute prevention through regulatory oversight, China adopts a traditional sectoral system of financial regulation, which has exhibited some limitations in meeting the regulatory challenges in a rapidly changing market. Its present system of financial dispute resolution similarly consists of segmented systems of arbitration, mediation and direct negotiation with financial institutions. In quest of a solution to the challenge of regulatory limitation and strengthened financial dispute resolution capacity, a comparative analysis is conducted of the financial regulatory and dispute resolution regimes in some advanced economies including the US, the UK and Australia, each of which is representative of a distinct regulatory model. In examining these overseas experiences for guidance, regard is given not only to their objective advantages and disadvantages, but also to the local conditions in China. It is concluded that the US regulatory model merits consideration in the short term, and with the further growth of China’s financial markets in the long run, the Australian model of both financial regulation and dispute resolution provides the preferred direction for reform.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnnual Meeting of Asian Law and Economics Association, AsLEA 2011en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectFinancial Crisis-
dc.subjectDispute Resolution-
dc.subjectFinancial Regulation-
dc.subjectChinese Law-
dc.subjectComparative Study-
dc.titleFinancial dispute prevention and resolution in China: synthesizing global experienceen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailAli, S: sali@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityAli, S=rp01236en_US
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.hkuros199817en_US
dc.customcontrol.immutablesml 130816-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats