【摘要】：隨著社會主義和諧社會的構(gòu)建和發(fā)展,近年來,法院非訴化調(diào)解制度在我國得到了迅速發(fā)展,其中有許多理論與實踐中的問題需要研究和解決,筆者擬就此做些探討。全文共分四章,現(xiàn)分述如下： 第一章首先介紹法院非訴化調(diào)解制度的概念,并與訴訟和解、訴訟調(diào)解、人民調(diào)解等相關(guān)制度相比較,厘清制度本身的內(nèi)涵。其次闡述法院非訴化調(diào)解的意義,包括維護(hù)當(dāng)事人最大利益,保障當(dāng)事人程序選擇權(quán),降低糾紛解決成本；合理配置司法資源,提高法院糾紛解決能力,保障司法效益最大化；緩解當(dāng)事人的對抗心理,實現(xiàn)法院訴調(diào)對接,促進(jìn)社會和諧穩(wěn)定。 第二章考察了其他國家和地區(qū)在法院非訴化調(diào)解實踐中所采用的模式,通過對大陸法系和英美法系國家在法院非訴化調(diào)解制度施行中的異同比較和認(rèn)識研究,取長補短,借鑒德國的起訴前強制調(diào)解制度、日本的民事調(diào)停制度、臺灣的訴前調(diào)解制度以及美國的法院附設(shè)調(diào)解制度和英國的法院非訴化調(diào)解制度,以期建構(gòu)出適合我國國情的法院非訴化調(diào)解制度。 第三章介紹并評述了最高人民法院對我國法院非訴化調(diào)解制度的有關(guān)司法解釋,包括對委托調(diào)解和司法確認(rèn)的規(guī)定,并評述了法院非訴化調(diào)解在上海、北京、廣東、甘肅等地的操作實踐,主要以浦東新區(qū)人民法院“訴前調(diào)解”程序、朝陽區(qū)人民法院訴前調(diào)解模式、東莞市第二人民法院矛盾糾紛解決體系以及定西市中級人民法院“訴前司法確認(rèn)機(jī)制”為典型代表。 本文第四章從經(jīng)濟(jì)、價值以及功能三個方面對我國法院非訴化調(diào)解制度建構(gòu)的原理進(jìn)行分析,并試圖從調(diào)整具體制度、改進(jìn)輔助措施兩個角度出發(fā)建構(gòu)并完善我國現(xiàn)行的法院非訴化調(diào)解,促使其更好的發(fā)揮調(diào)解作用。
[Abstract]:With the construction and development of the socialist harmonious society, in recent years, the court non-litigation mediation system has developed rapidly in our country, and there are many problems in theory and practice that need to be studied and solved. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter introduces the concept of the non-litigation mediation system of the court, and compares with the related systems, such as litigation settlement, litigation mediation, people's mediation and so on, and clarifies the connotation of the system itself. Secondly, it expounds the significance of non-litigation mediation, including safeguarding the best interests of the parties, ensuring the parties' choice of procedure, reducing the cost of dispute resolution, rationally allocating judicial resources, improving the ability of court dispute resolution, and ensuring the maximization of judicial benefits. Alleviate the antagonistic psychology of the parties, realize the docking of court suit, and promote social harmony and stability. The second chapter investigates the models adopted by other countries and regions in the practice of non-litigation mediation in court. Through the comparison and study of the similarities and differences between the civil law system and the Anglo-American law system in the implementation of the non-litigation mediation system in the court, we can learn from each other's shortcomings. Drawing lessons from Germany's pre-lawsuit compulsory conciliation system, Japan's civil mediation system, Taiwan's pre-litigation mediation system, the United States' court-attached mediation system and the British court non-litigation mediation system, In order to construct the court non-litigation mediation system suitable for the situation of our country. The third chapter introduces and comments on the Supreme people's Court's judicial interpretation of the non-litigation mediation system in our country, including the provisions on entrustment mediation and judicial confirmation, and comments on the court non-litigation mediation in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangdong. In Gansu and other places, the procedure of "pre-litigation mediation" by the Pudong New area people's Court and the pre-litigation mediation mode of the Chaoyang District people's Court are mainly used. The conflict and dispute settlement system of the second people's Court of Dongguan City and the judicial confirmation mechanism of the Dingxi Intermediate people's Court are typical representatives. The fourth chapter analyzes the construction principle of the non-litigation mediation system in our country from three aspects of economy, value and function, and tries to adjust the concrete system from the aspects of economy, value and function. Improve the auxiliary measures from two angles to construct and perfect the current court non-litigation mediation, to promote its better play the role of mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 范愉;淺談當(dāng)代“非訴訟糾紛解決”的發(fā)展及其趨勢[J];比較法研究;2003年04期

2 梅宏;高潔璞;;美國非訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制及其對我國的啟示[J];北京仲裁;2009年02期

3 胡家強;我國法院調(diào)解制度改革芻議[J];中國司法;2001年10期

4 高翔;;法院附設(shè)訴前調(diào)解之制度構(gòu)建[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年06期

5 馮戰(zhàn)備,韓軒,隋錫玲;法院調(diào)解制度改革的思考[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2002年09期

6 張華;趙可;;人民法院訴前調(diào)解制度的初步建構(gòu) 司法ADR模式訴前調(diào)解制度合理性、可操作性探究[J];法律適用;2007年11期

7 柳殿奎;宋志剛;;委托調(diào)解制度的完善[J];法律適用;2009年09期

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

9 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

10 章武生;司法ADR之研究[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年02期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 最高人民法院 蔣麗萍;[N];人民法院報;2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 閆慶霞;法院調(diào)解論[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 薛娟;論我國法院非訴化調(diào)解制度的建構(gòu)[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：2278105