《暨南大学法律评论（第四卷）》：
practices of arbitration institutions. However，the promulgation of the AL in 1994 virtually provided a new legal framework for Chinese arbitration. It is viewed as a milestone in Chinese arbitration history and in the development of the Chinese legal system. It provided a regulatory framework for the development of arbitration in China. The AL is considered a piece of modern arbitration legislation-It outlined modern arbitration principles including party autonomy， independent arbitration and the finality of arbitral awards. It confirmed the legal status of foreign-related arbitration and opened the door to establishing a modern domestic arbitration system in China. After the implementation of the AL， a number of domestic arbitration commissions were established all over China. It can be concluded that at the regulatory level， the Chinese AL generally converged with suitable and modern arbitration rules and practice.
However， when we look into the details of the institutions， rules and practices of the Chinese administrative system， the three features of the path determined in the first critical juncture still remain.
3. 2. 1 Lack of Independent of Arbitration Institutions
Article 8 of the AL 1994 provides that arbitration shall be carried out independently and shall be free from interference of administrative organs， social organizations or individuals. ~However， the reality is not exactly consistent with the requirement of the law.
The nature of the FATC had a profound historical influence on the development of modem arbitration infrastructure in China after the Culture Revolution. In February 1980， the State Council issued "Notice Concerning the Conversion of the FTA Commission into the Foreign Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission （FETAC）" ，which re-established the FYAC but renamed it as FETAC. In June 1988， the FETAC amended its name to the CIETAC. However， the CIETAC was not separated from the Legal Department of the CCPIT until 2002 when it was registered as an independent legal institution. Even if the CIETAC was legally an independent arbitration body， it naturally was a public institution. It was not totally independent and had to consider the government benefit.
……
展开
