發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-09 17:28

  本文選題：調(diào)解社會化　切入點(diǎn)：法院　出處：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法院調(diào)解社會化不僅是指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)踐的重要的程序理念,而且也是實(shí)現(xiàn)法院與社會共治的社會治理方式。法院調(diào)解社會化更多的是司法實(shí)踐的一種制度性創(chuàng)新,但是,實(shí)然的法院調(diào)解社會化程序運(yùn)作滋生了很多程序問題,特別是委托調(diào)解的法律缺位造成了各地各級法院的調(diào)解模式的巨大差異。為了真正實(shí)現(xiàn)法院與社會的協(xié)同共治,我國不但要對在法律中明確規(guī)定委托調(diào)解,而且更應(yīng)該確立法院調(diào)解社會化的程序保障和制度配套。 本文的主體部分,分為四章: 第一章是法院調(diào)解社會化概述。本章首先界定法院調(diào)解社會化的涵義,指出法院調(diào)解社會化不是一種糾紛解決機(jī)制,而是一種程序理念和社會治理方式,然后剖析法院調(diào)解社會化的主要表現(xiàn)形式,詳盡分析協(xié)助調(diào)解與委托調(diào)解的關(guān)系。本章繼而指出法院調(diào)解社會化是順應(yīng)國際調(diào)解社會化的潮流,也是應(yīng)對我國民事案件劇增的社會的現(xiàn)實(shí)的理性選擇,其正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)在于當(dāng)事人本位。 第二章是法院調(diào)解社會化的運(yùn)作模式考察。本章詳盡考察了北京市朝陽區(qū)人民法院的訴前調(diào)解模式、上海市長寧區(qū)人民法院的“人民調(diào)解窗口”、南通市的“大調(diào)解”機(jī)制、浙江省的“訴調(diào)銜接機(jī)制”以及莆田的“訴調(diào)對接”機(jī)制,繼而從主導(dǎo)機(jī)構(gòu)、法院角色、調(diào)解主體、表現(xiàn)形式、程序銜接和調(diào)解經(jīng)費(fèi)六個(gè)層面概括法院調(diào)解社會化的共同的程序機(jī)理。 第三章是我國法院調(diào)解社會化的現(xiàn)實(shí)困境。法院調(diào)解社會化在各級各地的法院運(yùn)作過程中出現(xiàn)了很多程序問題,使得其陷入一定的制度困境。這些問題包括:委托調(diào)解立法的缺位,并且造成委托調(diào)解的程序比較簡單;訴前委托調(diào)解削弱了對當(dāng)事人的訴權(quán)保障;調(diào)解的具體表現(xiàn)形式發(fā)展極不平衡;專業(yè)化的調(diào)解人隊(duì)伍的闕如以及調(diào)解經(jīng)費(fèi)嚴(yán)重短缺。同時(shí),文章運(yùn)用實(shí)證的方法剖析了法院調(diào)解社會化的問題造成的困境。 第四章是我國法院調(diào)解社會化的制度建構(gòu)。文章針對法院調(diào)解社會化的現(xiàn)實(shí)困境,提出了有針對性的完善措施。首先要從法律上明確規(guī)定委托調(diào)解制度,這就需要綜合采取四種方案,尤其要制定《社會調(diào)解法》。法律制定過程中要詳盡規(guī)定法院調(diào)解社會化的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)機(jī)構(gòu)和工作機(jī)構(gòu),建立立案預(yù)登記制度,保障當(dāng)事人訴權(quán)的正當(dāng)行使,正確處理當(dāng)事人的自治與法院權(quán)威的關(guān)系,規(guī)定訴前強(qiáng)制調(diào)解制度,發(fā)揮多元調(diào)解力量的合力,建立專業(yè)化的調(diào)解人隊(duì)伍,落實(shí)調(diào)解保密性原則,多元化保障調(diào)解經(jīng)費(fèi)的充裕。
[Abstract]:The socialization of court mediation is not only an important procedural concept to guide judicial practice, but also a way of social governance to realize the common governance between the court and society. The socialization of court mediation is more a kind of institutional innovation of judicial practice, but, The actual operation of the social procedure of court mediation has created many procedural problems, especially the absence of the law of entrusting mediation has caused great differences in the mediation modes of the courts at all levels in various places. In order to truly realize the cooperation between the court and the society, Our country should not only explicitly stipulate entrusting mediation in the law, but also establish the procedural guarantee and system matching for the socialization of court mediation. The main part of this paper is divided into four chapters:. The first chapter is an overview of the socialization of court mediation. Firstly, this chapter defines the meaning of the socialization of court mediation, pointing out that the socialization of court mediation is not a dispute resolution mechanism, but a procedural concept and social governance. Then it analyzes the main manifestations of the socialization of court mediation, and analyzes in detail the relationship between assisted mediation and entrusted mediation. This chapter then points out that the socialization of court mediation conforms to the trend of the socialization of international mediation. It is also a rational choice to deal with the rapid increase of civil cases in our country, and its legitimacy is based on the litigant standard. The second chapter is an investigation of the mode of operation of the socialization of court mediation. This chapter examines in detail the pre-litigation mediation model of the Chaoyang District people's Court in Beijing, the "people's Mediation window" of the Changning District people's Court in Shanghai, and the "Great Mediation" mechanism of Nantong City. Zhejiang Province's "the connection mechanism of litigation and regulation" and Putian's "suit and tune connection" mechanism, and then from the leading institutions, the role of the court, the main body of mediation, the form of expression, This paper summarizes the common procedural mechanism of the socialization of court mediation from six aspects of procedure convergence and mediation funds. The third chapter is the realistic dilemma of the socialization of court mediation in our country. There are many procedural problems in the process of the socialization of court mediation at all levels. These problems include: the absence of legislation on entrustment mediation, the simple procedure of entrusting mediation, the weakening of the protection of litigant's right of action by entrustment mediation before litigation; The concrete manifestation of mediation is very unbalanced, the lack of specialized mediators and the serious shortage of mediation funds. At the same time, the article analyzes the dilemma caused by the socialization of court mediation by using the empirical method. Chapter 4th is the system construction of the socialization of the court mediation in our country. In view of the realistic predicament of the socialization of the court mediation, the article puts forward some pertinent measures to perfect it. First of all, we should clearly stipulate the entrustment mediation system from the legal point of view. This requires comprehensive adoption of four programs, in particular the formulation of the Law on Social Mediation. In the process of formulating the law, the leading and working bodies of the socialization of court mediation should be specified in detail, and a pre-registration system should be established. To ensure the proper exercise of the litigants' right of action, to correctly handle the relationship between party autonomy and the authority of the court, to stipulate the system of compulsory mediation before litigation, to give play to the joint forces of multiple mediation forces, to establish a professional contingent of mediators, and to implement the principle of confidentiality of mediation, Diversification guarantees adequate funding for mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D925.14;D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 范愉;社會轉(zhuǎn)型中的人民調(diào)解制度——以上海市長寧區(qū)人民調(diào)解組織改革的經(jīng)驗(yàn)為視點(diǎn)[J];中國司法;2004年10期

2 范愉;有關(guān)調(diào)解法制定的若干問題(上)[J];中國司法;2005年10期

3 趙明霞;吳孝卿;;淺議民事糾紛委托人民調(diào)解[J];中國司法;2007年06期

4 陳振明 ,李德國 ,蔡晶晶;政府社會管理職能的概念辨析——《“政府社會管理”課題的研究報(bào)告》之一[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2005年04期

5 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

6 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

7 張衛(wèi)平;我國替代性糾紛解決機(jī)制的重構(gòu)[J];法律適用;2005年02期

8 姚志堅(jiān);;當(dāng)前法院附設(shè)ADR的調(diào)查與思考[J];法律適用;2006年04期

9 章武生,張大海;論德國的起訴前強(qiáng)制調(diào)解制度[J];法商研究;2004年06期

10 湯維建;;關(guān)于制定《社會調(diào)解法》的思考[J];法商研究;2007年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 楊榮馨;[N];法制日報(bào);2005年

2 最高人民法院副院長 張軍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

，

本文編號：1589531