本文選題：附設(shè)仲裁 + 實用主義��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：多元文化的融合與沖突既是美國的文化特征，亦是美國人接受多元解紛方式的社會條件。法院附設(shè)仲裁是美國在法院系統(tǒng)內(nèi)創(chuàng)設(shè)的第一個ADR，并被譽為“司法ADR之父”。它是一種與傳統(tǒng)仲裁迥然相異的糾紛解決機制，其發(fā)端于法院、運行于法院，且在訴訟的蔭影下致力于糾紛的解決。法院附設(shè)仲裁的獨特魅力在于其裁決不具約束力與終局性，卻彰顯了司法的公信力；其顛覆了人們對仲裁的傳統(tǒng)認知卻并非對傳統(tǒng)仲裁之否定。法院附設(shè)仲裁不僅拓寬了仲裁的適用場域，還以其“莊嚴的非正式性”增加了“接近司法”的路徑。 本文除導(dǎo)論外，共分五個章節(jié)，主要內(nèi)容為： 第一章是法院附設(shè)仲裁歷史嬗變。訴訟與ADR的互動締造了法院附設(shè)仲裁，龐德會議則為其提供了蓬勃發(fā)展的契機。在聯(lián)邦立法方面，迄今為止最重要的建樹為1998年《替代性糾紛解決法》；在實踐方面，法院附設(shè)仲裁走過了三個發(fā)展階段：第一階段是1970-1980年代，美國聯(lián)邦法院首次試點附設(shè)仲裁；第二階段是1990-2000年代，法院附設(shè)仲裁已發(fā)展成為法院案件管理實踐的既定部分；第三階段是2000年至今，附設(shè)仲裁成為廣泛用于聯(lián)邦和州級初審法院系統(tǒng)的替代性糾紛解決機制。 第二章是美國法院附設(shè)仲裁學(xué)理分析。法院附設(shè)仲裁乃美國司法實用主義的智慧之作。實用主義司法乃法律實用主義的核心，其強調(diào)司法要關(guān)心后果，以及基于后果作出政策判斷的傾向。實用主義法律進路對糾紛解決理論產(chǎn)生了深刻影響。將仲裁機制運用于法院管理中，既可節(jié)約法院資源，，又能于法院語境下分流案件、消解糾紛，以上亦是仲裁附設(shè)于法院的因由。法院附設(shè)仲裁誕生后，諸多爭議亦隨之而起，諸如應(yīng)否阻抑重新審判、應(yīng)否舍棄仲裁之終局性內(nèi)核、會否輸出“次等正義”，批評者對其正當性提出質(zhì)疑，卻也間接推動了法院附設(shè)仲裁的發(fā)展。 第三章是美國法院附設(shè)仲裁運作規(guī)程。聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院和州級初審法院之所以得以建立和實施法院附設(shè)仲裁，是源于《ADR法》所賦予的權(quán)力或固有授權(quán)。法院附設(shè)仲裁程序依開啟、展開和結(jié)束三個階段漸次鋪開，這是仲裁運作的動態(tài)過程。自愿性與強制性仲裁是美國法院附設(shè)仲裁的兩種模式，自愿性仲裁模式包括“選擇進入”與“選擇退出”型模式，強制性仲裁模式又分為“強制進入”與“法官下令進入”。通過本論題的研究，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，實施自愿性仲裁的地區(qū)或州法院的案件量通常沒有實施強制性仲裁法院的案件量大，工作負擔亦明顯輕于后者。美國聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院抑或州級初審法院之所以同時啟用強制性仲裁與自愿性仲裁兩種不同的程序模式，除深受法律實用主義影響外，更重要的是關(guān)注到了不同的州、不同的區(qū)域之間的差異，關(guān)注到了經(jīng)濟發(fā)展狀況的不均衡，關(guān)注到了法院案件量負擔的輕重，關(guān)注到了為合適的區(qū)域、合適的法院、合適的案件匹配合適的程序模式。 第四章是美國法院附設(shè)仲裁實證考察。從實證的角度對比分析了法院附設(shè)仲裁在美國聯(lián)邦法院啟動之初與當下成熟階段的運行狀況和實施效果。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，即使是法院附設(shè)仲裁試點時期的方案其設(shè)計亦相當完備，從總體目標到具體目標、從準入案件類型到具體仲裁流程都規(guī)劃地十分詳細具體；不僅對仲裁與訴訟的銜接進行了精準定位，還對仲裁員與法官之角色定位進行了厘清，甚至將司法人員從審前程序中撤離出來。法院附設(shè)仲裁并不是解決法院負擔過重和當事人不滿的靈丹妙藥，但經(jīng)過精心設(shè)計的仲裁方案的確能夠較好地與訴訟制度相銜接，與法院系統(tǒng)中其他解紛機制協(xié)調(diào)運作，同時吸引精英律師、律師志愿者的奉獻與支持。附設(shè)于法院的仲裁猶如調(diào)解與審判的“混血兒”，既是對審判的助益與補充，又別具一格地發(fā)揮著機制自身的潛能。 第五章是美國法院附設(shè)仲裁對我國的啟示。透過美國法院附設(shè)仲裁60余年的發(fā)展歷程，可以看到許多值得引為鏡鑒的制度精髓。法院不僅僅是民事糾紛處理的場域，亦不僅僅是仲裁程序的運作場域，它還承載了某種特殊使命，即提供訴訟與非訴訟解紛機制對接的宏大平臺。這種對接的內(nèi)涵亦是多層次的，其首先體現(xiàn)在組織機構(gòu)的對接，第二層次的對接體現(xiàn)在工作流程的對接，第三層次的對接體現(xiàn)在仲裁結(jié)果的對接。法院在仲裁運行中起到的完全是一種程序上的作用而對案件的實體部分不做任何處理。美國法院附設(shè)仲裁自創(chuàng)建伊始即啟用精英律師擔任中立者，其中不乏律師志愿者無償擔任仲裁員，且一直延續(xù)至今。律師仲裁員是法院附設(shè)仲裁制度的核心，法官實際上起到的作用非常有限。
[Abstract]:The United States is the integration and conflict of the cultural characteristics of cultural diversity, is also the Americans to accept social conditions. Multivariate approach is the first arbitration court annexed ADR in the United States to create within the court system, and is known as the "father of judicial ADR." it is a different from the traditional arbitration and dispute settlement mechanisms. It originated in the court, running on the court, and solve in the lawsuit's shadow is committed to the dispute. The arbitration court has unique charm lies in its ruling is not binding and finality, but shows the judicial credibility; it subverts the traditional cognition of arbitration is not the negation of traditional arbitration court. The arbitration not only widens the application field of arbitration, the path for its "informal" solemn increased "access to justice".
In addition to the introduction, this article is divided into five chapters. The main contents are as follows:
The first chapter is the historical evolution of court annexed arbitration. ADR provides interactive litigation and arbitration court, Pound meeting is to provide development opportunities. In federal legislation, by far the most important contribution for the 1998 "alternative dispute resolution law; in practice, the court annexed arbitration through three development stages: the first stage is 1970-1980 years, the United States federal court for the first time the pilot with arbitration; second stage is 1990-2000 years, court annexed arbitration has become the court established part of case management practice; the third stage is from 2000 to now, has become widely used in the federal and state court system of alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
The second chapter is the theoretical analysis of the court annexed arbitration. The arbitration court annexed the U.S. judicial pragmatism wisdom. Pragmatism is the core of judicial legal pragmatism, the emphasis should be concerned about the judicial consequences, and based on the consequences of policy judgment. Pragmatism tendency to make law approach to solve the theory had a profound impact on dispute arbitration mechanism will use. In court management, not only can save resources and energy in the court, the court in the context of the cases, resolution of disputes, above is also attached to the court of arbitration for arbitration court. After the birth of a lot of controversy has arisen, such as whether the inhibition of re trial, should abandon the finality of the kernel, it will output "inferior justice, critics questioned its legitimacy, but also indirectly promoted the development of the arbitration court.
The third chapter is the court annexed arbitration rules. The Federal District Court and the state court of first instance is to establish and implement the court annexed arbitration, is derived from the The fourth chapter is the empirical study. The court annexed arbitration from the perspective of empirical comparative analysis of the operation status of the arbitration court in the United States federal court to start at the beginning with the current mature stage and the implementation effect. The study found that even the court annexed arbitration during the pilot period plan design is complete. Also, from the overall goal to specific goals from access to specific types of cases are planning to arbitration process are detailed; not only to the arbitration and litigation of convergence of precise positioning, also on the role of the arbitrator and judge the position of clarification, even the judicial officers evacuated from pretrial procedure. The arbitration court annexed and not solve the court burden and parties with a ready-made panacea but after careful design, the arbitration scheme can indeed effectively connected with the litigation system, in coordination with other dispute resolution mechanism in court system Meanwhile, the arbitration in court is like the "mixed blood" of mediation and trial. It is not only helpful to and supplement to the trial, but also plays a unique role in the potential of the mechanism itself.
The fifth chapter is the court annexed arbitration enlightenment to our country. Through the development process of the court annexed arbitration for more than 60 years, you can see many is as mirror system. The court is not only the essence of the field of civil disputes, also is not only the operating field of the arbitration proceedings, it also hosts a special mission. Which provides great platform for docking litigation and non litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The connotation of this docking is also multi-level, the first reflected in the organization of the docking, docking second levels reflected in the work flow of the docking, docking third levels reflected in the docking results. Up to the court of arbitration in the arbitration in the operation is complete a program on the role of the part of the entity of the case without any treatment. The court annexed arbitration since its inception that enabled elite lawyers as neutral, there are no volunteer lawyers As an arbitrator and continues to this day, the lawyer arbitrator is the core of the court's arbitration system, and the judge actually plays a very limited role.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D971.2;DD916

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 毋愛斌;;法院附設(shè)型人民調(diào)解及其運作——以“人民調(diào)解工作室”為中心的考察[J];當代法學(xué);2012年02期

2 蔡從燕;美國民事司法改革架構(gòu)中的ADR[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年03期

3 李政;;ADR視野下私人調(diào)解的程序和效力——以美國JAMS公司為例[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年11期

4 劉曉紅;;構(gòu)建中國本土化ADR制度的思考[J];河北法學(xué);2007年02期

5 江偉;謝俊;;訴訟與訴訟外糾紛解決機制關(guān)系新論[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年01期

6 左衛(wèi)民;;常態(tài)糾紛的非司法解決體系如何和諧與有效——以S縣為分析樣本[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2010年05期

7 李海明;明海榮;;ADR程序參與人司法豁免權(quán)探析——由美國ADR實踐相關(guān)判例開展[J];唯實;2010年01期

8 田平安;民事審判改革探略[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1996年04期

9 張敏,趙元勤;對英美ADR實踐的法哲學(xué)思考[J];法治論叢;2003年06期

10 李浩;民事審前準備程序:目標、功能與模式[J];政法論壇;2004年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 曾令健;法院調(diào)解社會化研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號：1772749