在过去的几十年,中国尽管从西方先后借鉴了许多商业法律制度,但是从长远来看,如果没有保障法律实施的机制,中国经济将无法从中获益。当然,这并非贬损诉讼模式无法实现法律的宗旨。但“命令一控制”监管模式在酷似“猫捉老鼠”的法庭游戏中营造出的确是对抗性的法庭文化。而重复低效的诉讼也会增加诉讼当事人的经济负担。与诉讼模式相对应,行业自律是指为达到对协会和协会会员的监督、自我教育、自我管理的目的,由非政府主体制定行业规则并遵照执行的自律性活动。然而,此种自律监管的手段也有其局限性,即缺少来自国家监管机构的强制性规制。回应型规制被视为是一种混合了公私法效果的解决方案,在行业自律失灵时允许国家适当干预,从而为自律监管的开展提供了强有力的后盾。该模式侧重于监管机构间的良好协作,以期在商人团体中建立起对法律价值的追求与信仰,而不仅仅是单纯的遵守法律条文。该模式的创新弥补了“命令—控制”型监管模式的缺陷,有益于中国经济的飞速发展。 In the past few decades, although China has borrowed many commercial legal systems from the West, in the long run, the Chinese economy will not benefit from it without a mechanism for guaranteeing law enforcement. Of course, this is not a derogatory model of litigation can not achieve the purpose of the law. But the “command-and-control” regulatory model creates a truly adversarial court culture in courtroom games that resemble “cat and mouse.” Repeated inefficient litigation will also increase litigant economic burden. Corresponding to the mode of litigation, self-discipline refers to the self-discipline of non-governmental bodies in formulating industry rules and implementing self-discipline activities in order to achieve the supervision, self-education and self-management of associations and association members. However, this self-regulatory approach also has its limitations, namely the lack of mandatory regulation from national regulatory agencies. Responsive regulation is seen as a solution that combines the effects of public and private law, allowing countries to intervene appropriately when industry self-regulation fails, thus providing a strong backing for autonomous regulation. The model focuses on good collaboration among regulators with a view to establishing the pursuit and belief of legal values ​​in business groups, not just simply observing the law. The innovation of this model has made up for the shortcomings of the “command-and-control” regulatory model and is conducive to the rapid development of China’s economy.