我国法院调解制度的理性透视

发布时间：2018-03-25 03:23

本文选题：法院调解　切入点：诉讼上和解　出处：《华东政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：法院调解是我国颇具特色的制度,一直在我国的纠纷解决机制中占据着主导性地位。近年来的法院调解社会化和能动司法等政策进一步提高了法院调解的利用程度。然而,法院调解的一些结构性和技术性的缺陷一直未能找到合理的克服路径,致使法院调解面临着一定的制度困境。理性透视法院调解的制度困境是法院调解制度改革的基本作业。两大法系国家和地区的调解和诉讼上和解制度为法院调解制度的改革提供了重要的实践智慧。全文共分为四章: 第一章是法院调解基本理论概述。法院调解是一种以当事人合意为基础的纠纷解决机制。法院调解社会化改变了由单一主体进行调解的固定模式,不过这一模式也带来新的问题。法院调解是一种当事人处分行为和法院审判行为相结合的行为,当事人合意在其中居于主导性地位。法院调解具有纠纷解决、发现真实和程序对话的功能。第二章是国内外相关制度的比较法考察。本章运用比较法的方法详尽考察了与法院调解制度类似或者相近的美国的法院附设调解、澳大利亚的法院调解、日本的调停和诉讼上和解以及我国台湾地区的调解与诉讼上和解制度。在此基础上,作者总结出对我国法院调解制度改革非常重要的五项启示。第三章是我国法院调解制度的发展与困境。二十多年来,法院调解呈现梯形的曲线变化。法院调解制度遭遇的最大困境就是缺乏独立的制度定位。法院调解制度一直被视为审判权的行使方式,无法发挥当事人合意在该制度中的决定性作用。因此,调解制度与审判制度的关系未能得到恰当处理,法院调解率被作为法官绩效考核的重要指标,调解制度也缺乏严谨的程序体系。第四章是我国法院调解制度的理性建构。文章详尽剖析了现有的三种主要的法院调解模式的优缺点,主张我国应该采纳调审分离的法院调解模式。法院调解是一种独立的合意型纠纷解决机制,应当逐渐淡化其审判权行使方式的色彩。我国应该建立调解期日、法院调解救济机制和调解协议的司法确认程序,并且从制度上确立二元化的调解保密性。
[Abstract]:Court mediation is a characteristic system in our country, which has always occupied a dominant position in the dispute resolution mechanism. In recent years, the socialization of court mediation and the active administration of justice have further improved the utilization of court mediation. Some of the structural and technical shortcomings of court mediation have not been able to find a reasonable path to overcome, As a result, court mediation is confronted with certain system dilemmas. Rational Perspective of Court Mediation system Dilemma is the basic Operation of Court Mediation system Reform. Conciliation system in two legal system countries and regions is Court Mediation. The reform of the system provides important practical wisdom. The full text is divided into four chapters:. The first chapter is an overview of the basic theory of court mediation. Court mediation is a dispute settlement mechanism based on the consensus of the parties. The socialization of court mediation has changed the fixed mode of mediation by a single subject. However, this model also brings new problems. Court mediation is an act of combining the disposition of the parties with the court trial, in which the consent of the parties is dominant. Court mediation has dispute resolution. Discover the function of truth and program dialogue. The second chapter is a comparative study of the relevant systems at home and abroad. This chapter uses the method of comparative law to investigate in detail the court-attached mediation in the United States, which is similar to or similar to the court mediation system in Australia, and the court mediation in Australia. On the basis of the mediation and litigation conciliation in Japan and the conciliation and litigation conciliation system in Taiwan, the author summarizes five important inspirations to the reform of the court mediation system in China. The third chapter is the development and predicament of our country's court mediation system. The greatest dilemma of the court mediation system is the lack of independent institutional positioning. The court mediation system has always been regarded as the exercise of judicial power. Therefore, the relationship between the mediation system and the trial system has not been properly dealt with, and the court mediation rate is regarded as an important indicator of judges' performance appraisal. The mediation system also lacks the rigorous procedure system. The fourth chapter is the rational construction of our country's court mediation system. It is argued that our country should adopt the court mediation mode of the separation of court mediation, which is an independent consensual dispute settlement mechanism, and should gradually downplay the color of its judicial power. Court mediation relief mechanism and mediation agreement of judicial confirmation procedures, and from the system to establish dual mediation confidentiality.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.2

【相似文献】