本文選題：非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制　切入點(diǎn)：人民法院　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：縱觀我國五千年的歷史,我們對和諧的追求從來沒停止過。然而無論社會發(fā)展到什么程度都不可避免的產(chǎn)生沖突和糾紛。雖然當(dāng)今是法治社會,訴訟是糾紛解決的主要渠道,但是非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)也以其靈活、方便、快捷的特點(diǎn)為大家廣為接受,成為一種重要的糾紛解決途徑。ADR也并非一種完美的制度,實(shí)踐中,由于各種各樣的原因,使得ADR本身存在一些很難克服的局限性。 本文第一章主要是針對非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制的弱點(diǎn)和局限性出發(fā)進(jìn)行分析。非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)的主要缺點(diǎn)分為兩類:第一類是“不能”,非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)自身缺乏國家強(qiáng)制力的保障,程序和效力上缺乏“剛性”。第二類是“不法”,非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)的程序缺乏規(guī)范性,容易導(dǎo)致權(quán)利的濫用和其他不法結(jié)果的產(chǎn)生。人民法院是糾紛化解的專門機(jī)關(guān),擔(dān)負(fù)著化解矛盾建設(shè)和諧社會的重要責(zé)任。而人民法院作為國家公權(quán)力的代表,在一定程度上與非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制表現(xiàn)出很大的互補(bǔ)性。 第二章針對非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)自身軟弱的弱點(diǎn)提出人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)對ADR進(jìn)行必要的支持和幫助,這種支持和幫助不僅是指簡單的業(yè)務(wù)指導(dǎo),還包括程序上的支持以及對結(jié)果的確認(rèn)與執(zhí)行。 第三章提出對非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)進(jìn)行限制和監(jiān)督,這主要是針對非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)的第二類弱點(diǎn)。由于運(yùn)用非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)的過程中可能出現(xiàn)各種問題,所以有必要對其進(jìn)行監(jiān)督。顯然,并不是所有的案件都適合采用非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)進(jìn)行解決,現(xiàn)實(shí)中還是有不少爭端更適合采取訴訟加判決的模式解決,因此人民法院不應(yīng)一味引導(dǎo)當(dāng)事人采取非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制。人民法院對于ADR的支持并不是無條件的,需要堅(jiān)持合法性和合理性的前提,更多的情況下人民法院要承擔(dān)監(jiān)督者的重要責(zé)任。 第四章比較訴訟與非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)兩種糾紛解決途徑,訴訟途徑程序正規(guī),法律保障充分,與法律的契合程度比較高,但是同時訴訟程序也存在很多缺點(diǎn),周期冗長,效率低下,司法資源占用過多,官方色彩太濃導(dǎo)致不易為當(dāng)事人所理解等等。非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制在一定程度上能夠解決訴訟程序的一些弊端,然而絕大多數(shù)非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制卻又陷入了另一個怪圈,遠(yuǎn)離國家司法權(quán)力——得不到國家強(qiáng)制力支持而且會受到國家司法權(quán)力的懷疑。針對這種情況本章提出積極發(fā)展司法ADR的主張,司法ADR是司法程序和非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制的結(jié)合,如果適用得當(dāng),既能克服司法程序機(jī)械、冗長效率不高的缺點(diǎn)又能克服本文在第一章中提出的非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制(ADR)的弱點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:Throughout our five thousand years of history, our pursuit of harmony has never stopped. However, no matter how far the society develops, conflicts and disputes inevitably arise. Although today is a society ruled by law, litigation is the main channel for dispute resolution. However, the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR) is also widely accepted by all because of its flexible, convenient and quick characteristics, and has become an important dispute resolution approach. ADR is not a perfect system. In practice, because of various reasons, Make ADR itself have some very difficult to overcome the limitations. The first chapter analyzes the weakness and limitation of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The main shortcomings of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism are divided into two categories: the first is "cannot", and the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism is non-litigation dispute resolution machine. The ADR system itself lacks the guarantee of national compulsion. Lack of "rigidity" in procedure and effectiveness. The second category is "illegal", and the procedure of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADRR) is not standardized, which can easily lead to the abuse of rights and the production of other illegal results. The people's court is a specialized organ for the resolution of disputes. The people's court, as the representative of the public power of the state, is complementary to the non-litigation dispute settlement mechanism to some extent. In the second chapter, aiming at the weakness of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism, the people's court should provide necessary support and help to ADR. This kind of support and help is not only simple business guidance. It also includes procedural support and validation and execution of results. The third chapter proposes to limit and supervise the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR), which is mainly aimed at the second kind of weakness of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR). So it is necessary to supervise it. Obviously, not all cases are suitable for non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. In reality, there are still many disputes that are more suitable for litigation and adjudication. Therefore, the people's court should not blindly guide the parties to adopt the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The people's court's support for ADR is not unconditional, and it needs to adhere to the premise of legitimacy and rationality. More often, the people's court should bear the important responsibility of the supervisor. Chapter 4th compares the litigation and non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR). The litigation procedure is formal, the legal protection is sufficient, and the degree of agreement with the law is relatively high. But at the same time, the litigation procedure also has many shortcomings and the cycle is long. Low efficiency, too much occupation of judicial resources, too much official color, etc. Non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism can solve some disadvantages of litigation procedure to some extent. However, the vast majority of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms have fallen into another strange circle. Far from the judicial power of the state-it is not supported by the state's coercive power and will be doubted by the state's judicial power. In view of this situation, the author puts forward the idea of actively developing the judicial ADR, which is the combination of judicial procedure and non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. If it is applied properly, it can not only overcome the shortcomings of judicial procedure machinery, but also overcome the weakness of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism proposed in Chapter one of this paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(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;;當(dāng)代中國法律職業(yè)化路徑選擇——一個比較法社會學(xué)的研究[J];北方法學(xué);2007年02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 范愉;有關(guān)調(diào)解法制定的若干問題(下)[J];中國司法;2005年11期

4 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

5 范愉;;訴前調(diào)解與法院的社會責(zé)任 從司法社會化到司法能動主義[J];法律適用;2007年11期

6 李浩;;委托調(diào)解若干問題研究——對四個基層人民法院委托調(diào)解的初步考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

7 章武生;司法ADR之研究[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年02期

8 范愉;;權(quán)利救濟(jì)與多元化糾紛解決機(jī)制簡議[J];廣東行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

9 伍賢華;曾秀偉;;論我國律師在ADR中的作用[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會科學(xué)版);2007年01期

10 范愉;;私力救濟(jì)考[J];江蘇社會科學(xué);2007年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 于秀艷;[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

，

本文編號：1597814