本文選題：涉法涉訴信訪 + 律師介入��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：涉法涉訴信訪是信訪的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵子項(xiàng),同時(shí)也是較難處理的一個(gè)部分。龐大的存量和增量給相關(guān)責(zé)任單位帶來(lái)巨大負(fù)擔(dān),也不同程度地影響了其日常工作。為應(yīng)對(duì)這一問(wèn)題,涉法涉訴信訪責(zé)任單位在不斷提高自身接訪能力的同時(shí),也試著引入社會(huì)第三方力量介入到涉法涉訴信訪治理工作中來(lái)。長(zhǎng)期的實(shí)踐證明,社會(huì)力量在處理涉法涉訴信訪問(wèn)題上可以發(fā)揮出十分重要且獨(dú)特的作用,而在這股力量中,律師以其特定的知識(shí)背景成為絕對(duì)的主力軍,并由此衍生出各具特色的工作模式。在這些模式中,有的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)高效,可以有效化解涉法涉訴信訪矛盾;也有的因?yàn)槟Ｊ阶陨淼木窒扌远诰唧w工作中呈現(xiàn)出低效的狀態(tài)。為了整合和優(yōu)化資源,提高律師介入涉法涉訴信訪工作的整體有效性,就有必要對(duì)現(xiàn)行模式進(jìn)行分析和比較,擇優(yōu)培養(yǎng)和推廣。出于此目的,本文以管理學(xué)為視角,通過(guò)歷史研究、比較分析和實(shí)地考察等方法,以律師介入涉訴信訪工作實(shí)踐豐富的J省為研究對(duì)象,探討模式的演進(jìn)歷程并對(duì)現(xiàn)行模式進(jìn)行歸類(lèi)和分析比較。文章共分為七部分,第一部分為緒論,主要介紹文章的寫(xiě)作背景、意義、方法及相關(guān)研究綜述;第二部分界定了涉法涉訴信訪的概念及內(nèi)涵、介紹了涉法涉訴信訪矛盾突出的現(xiàn)狀以及相關(guān)責(zé)任單位的應(yīng)對(duì)方法和困境、列出相關(guān)政策法規(guī)來(lái)驗(yàn)證律師介入的必要性和合理性;第三部分以律師介入涉法涉訴信訪工作實(shí)踐較為豐富的J省為例,全面回顧了該省律師介入的發(fā)展歷程,并分析當(dāng)前工作的潛在問(wèn)題;第四部分是對(duì)J省現(xiàn)行律師介入涉法涉訴信訪工作模式的盤(pán)點(diǎn)以及在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)模式的歸類(lèi),為下一章各類(lèi)型的分析提供框架和依據(jù);第五部分是基于多維度對(duì)傳統(tǒng)型、獨(dú)立第三方型、大信訪型和工作站型律師介入類(lèi)型的比較分析;第六部分為J市信訪法律事務(wù)服務(wù)中心的案例介紹,佐證獨(dú)立第三方模式的獨(dú)特作用和有效性;第七部分為結(jié)論。經(jīng)過(guò)上述分析與評(píng)價(jià),文章最后得出結(jié)論:獨(dú)立第三方型相對(duì)于其他三種類(lèi)型更適應(yīng)當(dāng)前涉法涉訴信訪治理工作的需要,同時(shí)也具有更好的發(fā)展前景。然而當(dāng)前來(lái)看,該類(lèi)型模式的推廣存在著一些阻礙,主要體現(xiàn)為地方政府的支持力度和積極性不足。若能解決這一發(fā)展瓶頸,加大對(duì)律師第三方處理涉法涉訴信訪的支持力度,同時(shí)完善對(duì)其工作的監(jiān)督,便會(huì)更好地發(fā)揮律師在信訪矛盾治理上的專(zhuān)長(zhǎng)和獨(dú)特作用。短線來(lái)看可以有效緩解信訪者與政府之間的尖銳矛盾;長(zhǎng)線來(lái)看,則有利于推進(jìn)信訪工作法治化進(jìn)程。
[Abstract]:Litigant petition is a key sub-item of petition, and it is also a difficult part to deal with. The huge stock and increment bring a huge burden to the relevant responsibility units, and affect their daily work to varying degrees. In order to deal with this problem, the unit responsible for litigant petition is trying to introduce the social third party force into the administration of litigation petition and petition in the process of improving its ability to receive and receive visits. Long-term practice has proved that social forces can play a very important and unique role in dealing with the issue of litigation, petition and petition involving law. In this force, lawyers, with their specific knowledge background, have become the absolute main force. And thus derived from the characteristics of the work model. In these models, some of them are highly efficient, which can effectively resolve the conflicts between litigation and petition; others are inefficient because of the limitations of the mode itself. In order to integrate and optimize resources and improve the overall effectiveness of lawyers' intervention in litigation, it is necessary to analyze and compare the current mode and to select and promote the best. For this purpose, through the methods of historical research, comparative analysis and field investigation, this paper takes J province, which is rich in practice of lawyers' involvement in litigation letters and visits, as the object of study, from the perspective of management, and through the methods of historical research, comparative analysis and field investigation. Explore the evolution of the model and the current model classification and analysis. The article is divided into seven parts, the first part is the introduction, mainly introduces the writing background, significance, methods and related research review; This paper introduces the current situation of the contradiction between the petition and the petition concerning the law, as well as the coping methods and difficulties of the relevant liability units, and lists the relevant policies and regulations to verify the necessity and rationality of the lawyer's intervention. The third part takes J province, which is rich in practice of lawyers' intervention, as an example, reviews the development course of lawyers' intervention in this province, and analyzes the potential problems of current work. The fourth part is an inventory of the current mode of lawyers' involvement in litigation, petition and petition in Province J and the classification of the mode on this basis, which provides the framework and basis for the analysis of each type in the next chapter; the fifth part is based on the multi-dimensional traditional type. The comparative analysis of independent third party type, large petition type and workstation type lawyer intervention type. The sixth part is the case of J City letter and visit legal Affairs Service Center, which proves the unique role and effectiveness of the independent third party model. The seventh part is the conclusion. After the above analysis and evaluation, the paper draws a conclusion that the independent third party type is more suitable to the needs of the current litigation and petition administration work than the other three types, and also has a better development prospect. However, at present, there are some obstacles to the promotion of this type of model, mainly reflected in the lack of support and enthusiasm of local governments. If we can solve this bottleneck, strengthen the support to the third party of lawyers to deal with litigation and petition, and improve the supervision of their work, we will give full play to lawyers' expertise and unique role in the management of contradictions between letters and visits. In the short term, it can effectively alleviate the sharp contradiction between the petitioners and the government; in the long run, it will help to promote the legalization of petition work.
【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】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D632.8;D926.5

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊小軍;;妥善處理涉法涉訴信訪 維護(hù)社會(huì)穩(wěn)定[J];行政管理改革;2010年12期

2 潘江濤;;回應(yīng)·引導(dǎo)·溝通——應(yīng)對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)涉法涉訴事件的體會(huì)[J];新聞實(shí)踐;2011年04期

3 劉志鵬;;涉法涉訴案件處置機(jī)制建設(shè)探討[J];公安研究;2009年09期

4 蘭池軍;;對(duì)當(dāng)前妥善處理涉法涉訴信訪案件的理性思考[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2011年09期

5 中共北京市委政法委員會(huì)課題組;劉大為;謝超;陳星言;牛曉銳;田奕彤;吉萌;;化解涉法涉訴進(jìn)京重復(fù)訪的對(duì)策研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年S1期

6 張正朝;;律師參與處理涉法涉訴案件探究[J];中國(guó)司法;2012年03期

7 楊林英;;對(duì)當(dāng)前涉法涉訴信訪的調(diào)查與思考[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2012年12期

8 賴(lài)?guó)櫫?;代表如何接待不同類(lèi)型的來(lái)訪者[J];人民政壇;2008年12期

9 霍焰;;做好人大涉法涉訴信訪工作的思考[J];楚天主人;2009年12期

10 劉金川;田熙;戴珍萍;;人大試水監(jiān)督涉法涉訴典型信訪案[J];公民導(dǎo)刊;2010年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 ;兩辦印發(fā)《關(guān)于依法處理涉法涉訴信訪問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》[A];貴州法學(xué)（2014年第4期）[C];2014年

2 羅聃;;以科學(xué)發(fā)展觀為統(tǒng)領(lǐng)解決涉法涉訴信訪突出問(wèn)題的調(diào)查與思考[A];創(chuàng)新沈陽(yáng)文集（D）[C];2009年

3 ;檢察機(jī)關(guān)涉法涉訴信訪改革將重點(diǎn)做好三方面工作[A];貴州法學(xué)（2014年第4期）[C];2014年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者 呂游;全市涉法涉訴專(zhuān)項(xiàng)工作推進(jìn)會(huì)在孫吳縣召開(kāi)[N];黑河日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

2 記者 邢爽;我市召開(kāi)涉法涉訴訪工作現(xiàn)場(chǎng)推進(jìn)會(huì)[N];黑河日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

3 劉愛(ài)國(guó)　通訊員　 朱丹;確保全市涉法涉訴工作位居全省前三[N];洛陽(yáng)日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

4 記者 蘇黎原;加快解決涉法涉訴信訪問(wèn)題[N];運(yùn)城日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

5 牛海英;“三個(gè)到位”處理好涉法涉訴信訪問(wèn)題[N];河北日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

6 陳海發(fā)邋冀天福;河南表彰涉法涉訴信訪先進(jìn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

7 記者 孫鵬飛邋實(shí)習(xí)生 劉文鵬;加強(qiáng)涉法涉訴信訪源頭治理[N];平頂山日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

8 祝志永;德興設(shè)立涉法涉訴救助基金[N];上饒日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

9 通訊員 張吏君;臨河政法委五項(xiàng)措施處理涉法涉訴案件[N];巴彥淖爾日?qǐng)?bào)(漢);2008年

10 唐鳳偉　付相成 記者 米娜;對(duì)涉法涉訴越級(jí)訪追究責(zé)任[N];黑龍江日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 董紅梅;涉法涉訴信訪法治化路徑探析[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2015年

2 安建云;酒泉市涉法涉訴信訪問(wèn)題研究[D];燕山大學(xué);2015年

3 劉欣欣;當(dāng)前涉法涉訴信訪的困境及其出路[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

4 吳學(xué)嘉;我國(guó)涉法涉訴信訪制度廢除探究[D];山東大學(xué);2016年

5 崔超;涉法涉訴信訪的現(xiàn)實(shí)困境和對(duì)策研究[D];河北大學(xué);2016年

6 蘇朝忠;公共治理視角下涉法涉訴信訪制度改革研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2015年

7 王鳳霞;涉法涉訴信訪制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2016年

8 馮雪;律師參與涉法涉訴信訪案件制度研究[D];四川省社會(huì)科學(xué)院;2017年

9 劉慧星;律師參與涉法涉訴信訪工作機(jī)制研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2017年

10 劉子煬;演進(jìn)、分類(lèi)與比較：J省律師介入涉法涉訴信訪工作模式研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：1862153