From “Administrative Impediment” to “Judicial Diversion” - China’s Reform Path of the Divorce Cooling-Off Period and Lessons from South Korea -

A marked structural disjunction exists between China's divorce cooling-off period and divorce litigation. In consensual divorce, the cooling-off period functions largely as a formal waiting requirement without professional guidance or substantive intervention. Litigation, by contrast, intervenes only after conflicts have escalated into adversarial proceedings, leaving earlier disputes unresolved. Since the policy's implementation, the proportion of cases entering litigation has risen significantly, revealing a flow effect of “Administrative Impediment—litigation substitution” and aggravating both procedural fragmentation and judicial burdens. Using a functionalist comparative approach, this article draws on South Korea's judicially embedded Family Counseling Program, centered on the Family Court of Korea. By integrating counseling and mediation into judicial proceedings through investigators and mediation committees, the Korean model establishes a coordinated structure of “counseling first—Judicial Diversion.” Its core lesson is that effective coordination lies not in extending waiting periods, but in constructing a continuous conflict-resolution framework. China’s reform should therefore shift from dual-track separation to functional integration: transforming the cooling-off period into an active intervention mechanism, institutionalizing pre-mediation in tandem with specialized family adjudication, and building professional teams to integrate administrative, judicial, and social resources. This approach respects divorce autonomy while promoting procedural efficiency, child protection, and social stability.