河南省P县法院民事调解制度适用的调研报告

发布时间：2018-10-30 17:34

【摘要】：民事调解制度作为多元纠纷解决机制中最为重要的一种,在纠纷解决过程中发挥了很大价值。以调解方式处理民事纠纷,有效缓解了社会转型过程中的矛盾和冲突,维护了社会稳定,实现了法律效果和社会效果的统一。迄今为止,理论界对于民事调解制度的研究已经达到了一定水平,而对实践中调解制度的运用,尤其是基层人民法院调解工作的具体情况的调研还有很大空间。本文在对P县人民法院调解实践调研的基础上,以收集到的数据和材料作为论据,通过调查研究、实证分析、文献研究等方法,发现民事调解制度适用中存在的一些问题,进而提出相关完善建议。我国的民事调解原则规定有不尽合理之处,“查明事实、分清是非”原则不仅损害了当事人的处分权,而且抑制了诉讼效率。调解程序立法规定不完善,导致法官在调解过程中主观随意性增加。调审合一模式下法官作为调解人和审判者的双重身份侵害了当事人自愿调解权利,使得实践中自愿原则贯彻不力。诉前调解在实践中操作不统一,而且基层法院法官对诉前调解认识有偏差。此外,在基层法院,调解主体多局限于法院法官。因此本文提出,要修改“查明事实,分清是非”原则,对于不同阶段和不同案件的调解应区分适用“查明事实、分清责任”的原则;实行调审分离诉讼模式,规定专门的调解机构、调解人员,使调解法官与审判法官分离;制定调解规范,明确调解工作程序,规范调解行为;从立法上界定诉前调解的含义、明确诉前调解的主体和适用范围、规范诉前调解程序;在建立诉调对接制度,构建多元化调解机制方面,首先建立诉调对接组织,整合各调解力量,建立整体联动机制,其次建立各项制度,实现管理制度对接,最后建立健全诉与非诉调解的经费保障制度,可以考虑设立国家为主、社会支持的ADR经费保障机制。
[Abstract]:Civil mediation system, as one of the most important mechanisms of dispute resolution, plays a great role in the process of dispute resolution. Handling civil disputes by mediation effectively alleviates the contradictions and conflicts in the process of social transformation, maintains social stability, and realizes the unification of legal effect and social effect. Up to now, the research on the civil mediation system has reached a certain level, and the application of the mediation system in practice, especially the investigation of the concrete situation of the basic people's court mediation work, still has a lot of space. Based on the investigation of mediation practice in P County people's Court and the data and materials collected, this paper finds some problems in the application of civil mediation system by means of investigation, empirical analysis, literature study, etc. And then put forward the relevant improvement suggestions. The principle of civil mediation in China is unreasonable. The principle of "find out the facts and distinguish between right and wrong" not only damages the right of disposition of the parties, but also inhibits the efficiency of litigation. The legislation of mediation procedure is not perfect, which leads to the increase of subjective arbitrariness in the process of mediation. The dual status of the judge as mediator and judge infringes on the parties' right of voluntary mediation under the mode of the unity of mediation and trial, which makes the implementation of the principle of voluntary mediation weak in practice. The practice of pre-litigation mediation is not uniform, and the basic court judges have a bias in their understanding of pre-litigation mediation. In addition, in the basic courts, the main body of mediation is limited to court judges. Therefore, this paper suggests that the principle of "ascertaining facts and distinguishing between right and wrong" should be revised, and the principle of "ascertaining facts and distinguishing responsibility" should be applied to mediation in different stages and cases. Carry out the mode of mediation and trial separation litigation, stipulate the special mediation organization and mediation personnel, separate the mediation judge from the trial judge, formulate the mediation standard, clarify the mediation work procedure, standardize the mediation behavior; Defining the meaning of pre-litigation mediation in legislation, clarifying the subject and scope of application of pre-litigation mediation, and standardizing the procedure of pre-litigation mediation; In the aspect of setting up the system of suit and adjustment, constructing the multiplex mediation mechanism, firstly, establishing the organization of the connection between the lawsuit and the mediation, integrating all the mediation forces, establishing the whole linkage mechanism, secondly, establishing each system, realizing the management system docking. Finally, we should establish and perfect the fund guarantee system of litigation and non-litigation mediation. We can consider the establishment of state-oriented and social-supported ADR funding guarantee mechanism.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.22

【相似文献】