本文選題：訴訟外糾紛解決機制　切入點：意義　出處：《安徽大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在當(dāng)前社會大變革時期,隨著經(jīng)濟的快速發(fā)展,人與人之間的交往和聯(lián)系增多,與此相對應(yīng),利益沖突和糾紛則呈現(xiàn)新型化、復(fù)雜化和多樣化的特點。這導(dǎo)致了現(xiàn)有的司法資源難以滿足大量糾紛解決的需要,加劇了法院的訴訟負擔(dān),當(dāng)事人的訴求得不到滿足,而訴訟外糾紛解決機制則可以有效緩解當(dāng)前不斷增加的糾紛數(shù)量和有限的司法資源之間的矛盾。 各國的法律實踐也證明了,單一的糾紛解決方式不能解決所有的社會糾紛,糾紛解決方式的選擇應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)糾紛的性質(zhì)、雙方的社會關(guān)系以及權(quán)利的大小來決定。當(dāng)前,我國各地區(qū)也在嘗試著構(gòu)建多元化的訟外糾紛解決機制,以發(fā)揮非訴糾紛解決方式在解決特定糾紛上的優(yōu)勢,這些嘗試也取得了一定的成效。但是我國的訴訟外糾紛解決機制還存在一些問題,如訴訟外糾紛解決機制沒有形成一個統(tǒng)一的協(xié)調(diào)機制、訴調(diào)對接機制不健全、調(diào)解員的素質(zhì)普遍較低等。為了使訴訟外糾紛解決機制能夠更加快捷、高效地解決糾紛,必須要對訴訟外糾紛解決機制進行完善。 個制度的建立,必然有它存在的價值所在,訴訟外糾紛解決機制同樣也不例外。通過多年的實踐,訴訟外糾紛解決機制的價值已經(jīng)得到了人們的認可：它不僅有利于減少糾紛解決成本和有利于當(dāng)事人意思自治權(quán)的體現(xiàn),而且有利于和諧社會的構(gòu)建。 訴訟外糾紛解決機制在中國有著很深的歷史淵源,調(diào)解被稱為“東方奇葩”,起源于西周時期,現(xiàn)代的調(diào)解依然是我國重要的糾紛解決方式之一。同樣的,仲裁、行政裁決等訴訟外糾紛解決方式也在社會糾紛的解決方面發(fā)揮了重要作用。但是,現(xiàn)存的訴訟外糾紛解決機制的缺陷在具體實踐過程中也暴露了出來,這不利于訴訟外糾紛解決機制的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 縱觀域外國家的法律發(fā)展史,非訴糾紛解決方式也是重要的解決糾紛辦法。各個國家根據(jù)本國的實際情況,形成了各有特色的訴訟外糾紛解決機制,如日本的調(diào)停制度、英國的全國律師ADR網(wǎng)絡(luò)和專業(yè)的糾紛解決機構(gòu)等,對這些國家的訴訟外糾紛解決機制的研究,可以為我國的訴訟外糾紛解決機制的發(fā)展和完善提供有益的經(jīng)驗,避免他們在實踐過程中出現(xiàn)的錯誤和彎路。 我們應(yīng)該以現(xiàn)有的糾紛解決資源為基礎(chǔ),借鑒域外國家有益的經(jīng)驗,根據(jù)我國的國情、社情,進一步完善我國的訴訟外糾紛解決機制,具體可以包括以下幾個方面：一是建立專門的非訴訟糾紛解決機制的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)協(xié)調(diào)機構(gòu)；二是健全非訴訟糾紛解決方式與法院訴訟的對接機制；三是培育和扶植專業(yè)的行業(yè)性糾紛解織；四是提高調(diào)解員的水平和素質(zhì),發(fā)揮律師的專業(yè)調(diào)解人的作用。
[Abstract]:In the current period of great social change, with the rapid development of the economy, the contacts and contacts between people have increased, corresponding to which conflicts of interest and disputes are emerging. The characteristics of complexity and diversification. This makes it difficult for the existing judicial resources to meet the needs of a large number of dispute resolution, exacerbates the litigation burden of the court, and the claims of the parties are not satisfied. The dispute settlement mechanism can effectively alleviate the contradiction between the increasing number of disputes and limited judicial resources. The legal practice of various countries has also proved that a single dispute resolution method cannot solve all social disputes, and the choice of dispute settlement method should be determined according to the nature of the dispute, the social relations between the two parties and the size of the right. Various regions of our country are also trying to build a diversified mechanism for resolving disputes outside litigation in order to give full play to the advantages of non-litigation dispute resolution in resolving specific disputes. These attempts have also made some achievements. However, there are still some problems in the dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation in our country, such as the non-litigation dispute settlement mechanism has not formed a unified coordination mechanism, the mechanism of litigation mediation and docking is not perfect. The quality of mediators is generally low. In order to solve disputes more quickly and efficiently, it is necessary to perfect the dispute resolution mechanism outside litigation. The establishment of this system is bound to have its value in existence, and the mechanism for resolving disputes outside litigation is no exception. Through years of practice, The value of the dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation has been recognized by people: it is not only conducive to reducing the cost of dispute resolution and the realization of the autonomy of the parties, but also conducive to the construction of a harmonious society. The dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation has a deep historical origin in China. Mediation is called "Oriental Flower", originated in the Western Zhou Dynasty, and modern mediation is still one of the most important dispute resolution methods in China. Non-litigation dispute resolution, such as administrative adjudication, has also played an important role in the settlement of social disputes. However, the defects of the existing out-of-litigation dispute resolution mechanism have also been exposed in the concrete practice. This is not conducive to the sustainable development of the dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation. Throughout the history of the legal development of foreign countries, non-litigation dispute resolution is also an important method of dispute resolution. According to their actual conditions, each country has formed its own unique mechanism for resolving disputes outside litigation, such as Japan's mediation system. The ADR network of lawyers and professional dispute resolution institutions in the United Kingdom can provide useful experience for the development and improvement of the dispute resolution mechanism outside litigation in these countries, and the research on the mechanism of dispute resolution outside litigation in these countries can provide a useful experience for the development and improvement of the dispute resolution mechanism outside litigation in our country. Avoid the mistakes and detours they make in the course of practice. We should take the existing dispute resolution resources as the basis, draw lessons from the beneficial experiences of foreign countries, and further improve the dispute resolution mechanism outside litigation in our country according to our country's national conditions and social conditions. It can include the following aspects: first, the establishment of a special non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism of the leadership coordination mechanism, the second is to improve the non-litigation dispute resolution and court litigation docking mechanism; The third is to cultivate and foster professional disputes, and the fourth is to improve the level and quality of mediators and play the role of professional mediators of lawyers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D926

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 林應(yīng)欽;訴訟外糾紛解決機制中的律師角色[J];中國司法;2005年10期

2 杜瑩;;“訴調(diào)對接”機制相關(guān)問題的探析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2011年04期

3 劉清山;;行政裁決芻議[J];湖北經(jīng)濟學(xué)院學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2007年04期

4 柯陽友;李莉華;;我國多元化糾紛解決機制之建構(gòu)[J];河北大學(xué)成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年03期

5 敖妙;;我國與美國司法ADR的比較研究——兼論對構(gòu)建我國多元化糾紛解決機制的啟示[J];沈陽工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年03期

6 王學(xué)輝;雙向建構(gòu):國家法與民間法的對話與思考[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1999年01期

7 賈鐘媛;;人民調(diào)解員的素質(zhì)探討[J];現(xiàn)代商貿(mào)工業(yè);2010年12期

8 田中二郎,肖軍;公法契約的可能性[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2002年01期

9 陳葵;江和平;肖晟程;黃琪;;構(gòu)建多元的矛盾糾紛解決體系[J];中國審判;2009年10期

10 靳建麗;民事訴訟和解制度的比較研究[J];中州學(xué)刊;2002年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 韋鵬;我國人民調(diào)解制度的反思與重構(gòu)[D];河北大學(xué);2005年

2 薛凌云;論我國非訟解決社會糾紛機制的完善[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2007年

3 文倩;論我國法院調(diào)解制度的契約化改造[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

4 殷佳涵;中日ADR制度發(fā)展比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

5 黃佳;中英非訴訟糾紛解決機制的比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

6 王寶娜;訴訟外糾紛解決機制研究[D];河北大學(xué);2007年

7 鄭衛(wèi)華;我國多元化糾紛解決機制的理性構(gòu)建與完善[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

8 張展;論民事訴訟調(diào)解制度的重構(gòu)[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：1637520