本文選題：法院調(diào)解　切入點(diǎn)：程序正義　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文在梳理我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)上，以程序正義為視角，對(duì)我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度進(jìn)行了程序檢討，并進(jìn)一步提出了法院調(diào)解中的程序正義保障機(jī)制構(gòu)建路徑，試圖在現(xiàn)有司法體制下通過(guò)程序改造解決法院調(diào)解目前存在的強(qiáng)制調(diào)解等不符合正義的地方，推進(jìn)我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度的現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程。 本文分為引言、正文、結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分： 引言主要指出了法院調(diào)解復(fù)興的背景及其面臨的問(wèn)題，并進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)了將程序正義作為法院調(diào)解制度基石進(jìn)行現(xiàn)代化構(gòu)建所具有的重大理論和實(shí)踐意義。 正文分為五章：第一章從靜態(tài)、動(dòng)態(tài)、橫縱向等多個(gè)維度，力圖把握我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度全貌。法院調(diào)解是指爭(zhēng)議雙方當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)人民法院主持，通過(guò)自主協(xié)商，達(dá)成協(xié)議，并經(jīng)人民法院確認(rèn)效力，最終徹底化解糾紛的一種訴訟活動(dòng)和法院結(jié)案方式。法院調(diào)解制度發(fā)軔于古代的官府調(diào)解，歷經(jīng)幾千年的發(fā)展演變，在我國(guó)司法審判中一直居于重要地位。20世紀(jì)90年代，由于判決在審判中的地位凸顯，法院調(diào)解一度呈下降趨勢(shì)。但隨著2004年中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義和諧社會(huì)的提出，法院調(diào)解制度迎來(lái)了復(fù)興。 第二章首先對(duì)程序正義的來(lái)源及發(fā)展進(jìn)行了梳理。程序正義是正義觀念在程序?qū)用嫔系姆从�，源于古羅馬時(shí)期的“自然正義”原則，后來(lái)發(fā)展為英美法上的“正當(dāng)程序原則”。20世紀(jì)70年代，羅爾斯對(duì)程序正義進(jìn)行了經(jīng)典闡述，并將其劃分為純粹的程序正義、完善的程序正義和不完善的程序正義三種。接下來(lái)，通過(guò)對(duì)實(shí)體正義與程序正義的比較，該章肯定了程序正義的獨(dú)立價(jià)值，并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出了評(píng)價(jià)程序正義的若干標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：（1）中立性；（2）平等性；（3）當(dāng)事人的參與性；（4）程序合理性；（5）公開(kāi)性；（6）尊重當(dāng)事人人格尊嚴(yán)；（7）及時(shí)終結(jié)性。 第三章為法院調(diào)解進(jìn)行程序正義改造作了必要性分析。首先，，法院調(diào)解是法院行使審判權(quán)的一種方式，為了防止法官在調(diào)解中肆意行使權(quán)力，有必要通過(guò)程序?qū)ζ溥M(jìn)行規(guī)制。其次，法院調(diào)解結(jié)果作為雙方當(dāng)事人自主協(xié)商達(dá)成的協(xié)議，正當(dāng)?shù)某绦蛴欣谄浍@得正當(dāng)性支持，從而被當(dāng)事人接受。最后，不同于民事訴訟程序，法院調(diào)解的目的在于徹底化解糾紛，堅(jiān)持程序正義有利于吸收當(dāng)事人的不滿，實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目的。 第四章以程序正義為標(biāo)尺，對(duì)我國(guó)法院調(diào)解程序進(jìn)行了檢討。我國(guó)法院調(diào)解程序存在的問(wèn)題主要有以下幾個(gè)方面：“調(diào)審合一”體制下法官的角色之惑；法官調(diào)解偏好侵蝕當(dāng)事人意志自由；“背對(duì)背”調(diào)解中當(dāng)事人的參與障礙；調(diào)解博弈中原告的選擇困境；訴調(diào)轉(zhuǎn)換間當(dāng)事人隱秘暴露；“久調(diào)不決”使正義遲到。 第五章在對(duì)我國(guó)法院調(diào)解程序問(wèn)題進(jìn)行檢視的基礎(chǔ)上，有針對(duì)性的提出了進(jìn)行法院調(diào)解中的程序正義保障機(jī)制構(gòu)建的六個(gè)要點(diǎn)：重新回歸“審判為主，調(diào)解為輔”的司法理念；確立自愿和中立的原則；建立“訴調(diào)對(duì)接”機(jī)制，賦予當(dāng)事人程序選擇權(quán)；保證調(diào)解程序中當(dāng)事人富有意義的參與；保守雙方當(dāng)事人在調(diào)解程序中的隱秘；確保調(diào)解程序的及時(shí)性和終局性。
[Abstract]:In this paper, basing on combing the development of court mediation system in China, from the viewpoint of procedural justice, the court mediation system of our country through the program review, and further puts forward the path to construct the court mediation guarantee mechanism of procedural justice in the process of transformation, trying to pass under the existing judicial system to solve the existing court mediation compulsory mediation etc. do not meet the justice and promote the court mediation system of our country's modernization process.
This article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion.
The introduction points out the background and problems of court mediation, and further emphasizes the great theoretical and practical significance of procedural justice as the cornerstone of court mediation system for modernization.
The text is divided into five chapters: the first chapter from the static, dynamic, multi lateral and longitudinal dimensions, trying to grasp the court mediation system of our country whole. The court mediation is a dispute between both parties may apply to the people's court presided over an agreement through consultations, and, after the people's court to confirm the effectiveness, eventually completely resolve disputes in a lawsuit and the court case. The court mediation system originated from the ancient government mediation, after thousands of years evolution of judicial adjudication in China has been in the important position of.20 in 90s, due to prominence in the trial judgment status, court mediation was decreased. But with the characteristics of socialist harmonious society put forward in 2004 China, court the mediation system ushered in the Renaissance.
The second chapter of the origin and development of procedural justice carried out. Procedural justice is a reflection of the concept of justice in the program level, originated in ancient Rome period "natural justice" principle, for the later development of the common law principles of due process in.20 in 70s, Rawls made a classic exposition of procedural justice, and it will be divided into pure procedural justice, perfect procedural justice and imperfect procedural justice three. Next, through the comparison of substantive justice and procedural justice, this chapter confirms the independent value of procedural justice, and on this basis put forward some standards of justice evaluation procedures: (1) neutrality; (2) equality; (3) the parties involved; (4) the reasonableness of the program; (5) open; (6) the parties to respect the human dignity; (7) in the end.
The third chapter is the court mediation of procedural justice reform made the necessary analysis. First, the court mediation is a way for the court to exercise jurisdiction, in order to prevent the wanton exercise of power in mediation, it is necessary to regulate it through the program. Secondly, the court mediation results for both parties negotiated agreements, while the program is beneficial to the legitimacy of the support, in order to be accepted by the parties. Finally, different from the civil procedure, the court mediation is to resolve disputes, adhere to procedural justice to absorb the discontent of the parties, to achieve this goal.
In the fourth chapter of procedural justice for the scale of our court mediation program review. Our court mediation procedure problems mainly in the following aspects: "the trial judge one system under the confusion of the role; the judge mediation preference erosion free will of parties;" back on the back "to participate in mediation obstacle problem for the plaintiff; selection; exposure of the parties' privacy;" long decision to make justice late.
The fifth chapter in view of questions based on the court mediation procedure in our country, there are six key points of constructing court mediation guarantee mechanism of procedural justice in the forward: return to the "trial, mediation by the" judicial philosophy; and establish voluntarily the principle of neutrality; establish v. intermediation mechanism and give the parties the right to choose procedures; ensure the parties in the mediation process meaningful participation; conservative parties in the mediation process in secret; to ensure the timeliness and finality of the mediation process.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

2 李政;;中國(guó)特色的調(diào)解制度研究——基于美國(guó)調(diào)解程序和效力的啟發(fā)[J];比較法研究;2011年05期

3 唐偉優(yōu);;論我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度的完善[J];邊疆經(jīng)濟(jì)與文化;2010年04期

4 車傳波;論民事訴訟的價(jià)值[J];長(zhǎng)春師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

5 徐勝萍;;民事糾紛解決的第三領(lǐng)域——法院委托調(diào)解[J];東北師大學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年01期

6 梁平;陳奎;;論法院調(diào)解價(jià)值的剛性特質(zhì)與司法實(shí)踐的柔性歸位[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2010年01期

7 趙旭東;程序正義概念與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年06期

8 李浩;;法院協(xié)助調(diào)解機(jī)制研究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年04期

9 肖建華;唐玉富;;論法院調(diào)解保密原則[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年04期

10 李浩;論調(diào)解不宜作為民事審判權(quán)的運(yùn)作方式[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1996年04期

本文編號(hào)：1574474