法院在调解中的功能比较研究

发布时间：2018-02-01 03:23

本文关键词： 调解法院调解法院附设调解替代性纠纷解决机制　出处：《天津商业大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：法院参与调解主要发挥调解发起者、调解主持者和调解结果确认者三种功能。从调解和司法各自的性质进行考察,调解属于社会自治领域的纠纷解决方式,而司法则是对国家公权力的运用。法院在参与调解时,应当被允许为调解提供便利,却不可将司法权运用于参与调解的过程之中。法院应当发挥调解发起者功能和大部分主持者功能,而调解结果确认者功能和以调代审的主持者功能由于被混入了公权力意志,则应当被坚决避免。从调解的词源和我国调解的历史考察,我国对于调解人的权威性要求高,对调解结果的公正性也有需求,这使得我国尚不能完全放弃法院的调解主持者功能,但基于降低司法机关压力的考量,应当限制法院主持者功能的发挥。本文基于基础理论的比较研究,分析不同调解类型间的功能差异、造成差异的文化原因、我国的功能建议,这些部分组成了本文论述的主要内容。首先,从词源、历史和法理三个视角对理论基础进行论述,从而看到东西方社会对于调解问题,在概念理解、历史形成等多个方面存在的差异;其次,比较分析三种功能在不同调解类型中的存在形态;再次,对于这些功能存在差异的原因进行文化分析,包括公权力介入的历史差异、对于调解人权威性的要求存在差异、对于调解实体结果的公正程度之要求存在差异等方面,还包括从私权自治意识的差异、对公权力介入私人自治领域的警惕性存在差异,以及期待调解期待目标的差异等角度进行分析。通过分析产生这些现象的文化原因,找到法院在调解中功能的差异与东西方文化差异两者之间的联系;最后,基于制度比较和文化差异两方面的分析,提出我国法院在调解中应当具备的功能。
[Abstract]:Court participation in mediation mainly plays three functions: the initiator of mediation, the moderator of mediation and the confirmer of the result of mediation. From the aspects of mediation and judicature, mediation is a kind of dispute resolution method in the field of social autonomy. Justice is the use of the public power of the state. When the court participates in mediation, it should be allowed to facilitate mediation. However, judicial power should not be applied in the process of participating in mediation. The court should play the role of initiator of mediation and most of the function of moderator. However, the function of mediating result confirmer and the moderator function of adjusting trial should be avoided from the etymology of mediation and the history of mediation in our country because it is mixed into the will of public power. Our country has a high demand for the authority of mediators and the fairness of mediation results, which makes our country can not completely give up the mediation moderator function of the court, but based on the consideration of reducing the pressure of the judicial organs. Based on the comparative study of basic theories, this paper analyzes the functional differences between different types of mediation, the cultural reasons for the differences, and the functional suggestions of our country. These parts constitute the main content of this paper. Firstly, from the three perspectives of etymology, history and jurisprudence, the theoretical basis is discussed, so as to see the eastern and western society in the concept of mediation in understanding. The differences in many aspects such as the formation of history; Secondly, the existence of three functions in different types of mediation is compared and analyzed. Thirdly, cultural analysis is carried out on the reasons of these differences, including the historical differences of public power intervention, and the differences on the authority requirements of mediators. There are differences in the demands for the degree of justice of the mediation entity, including the differences in the consciousness of private autonomy and the vigilance of public power in the field of private autonomy. By analyzing the cultural reasons of these phenomena, we can find the connection between the function difference of court in mediation and the cultural difference between East and West. Finally, based on the analysis of institutional comparison and cultural differences, the author puts forward the functions that Chinese courts should have in mediation.
【学位授予单位】：天津商业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】