本文關(guān)鍵詞： 訴訟調(diào)解 查明事實(shí) 第三人利益 調(diào)審合一 調(diào)審分離　出處：《河北大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：訴訟調(diào)解具有和諧、效率、效益等價(jià)值,具有徹底解決糾紛、節(jié)省司法成本、恢復(fù)緊張的社會(huì)關(guān)系和促進(jìn)社會(huì)和諧等功能。在民事糾紛化解上,訴訟調(diào)解具有優(yōu)勢(shì),但存在對(duì)案件當(dāng)事人的訴訟權(quán)利造成損害、一方當(dāng)事人做出讓步而犧牲合法權(quán)益、法官怠于履行法律賦予的審判職權(quán)等弊端。法院在訴訟期間內(nèi)過分強(qiáng)調(diào)調(diào)解弱化依法判決,會(huì)使法院民事審判原本的判斷是非、制裁違法、形成社會(huì)規(guī)則的功能大打折扣。依法裁判應(yīng)該是法院解決法律糾紛的主要方式,法院應(yīng)該通過對(duì)案件的裁判來強(qiáng)化規(guī)則,我們應(yīng)理性看待民事訴訟調(diào)解,尤其是調(diào)解優(yōu)先,應(yīng)合理構(gòu)建調(diào)解與判決的正確關(guān)系�！安槊魇聦�(shí)、分清是非”原則存在以下缺陷:只有開庭審理才能查清事實(shí);與調(diào)解解決糾紛的訴訟機(jī)制不相符合,作為調(diào)解的原則不恰當(dāng);不利于節(jié)約訴訟成本,降低了訴訟效率,有違調(diào)解的經(jīng)濟(jì)原則;無(wú)助于當(dāng)事人達(dá)成調(diào)解協(xié)議;與司法公正的價(jià)值取向相違背。但并不是所有的案件只有通過法庭審理、法庭辯論才能查明事實(shí)、分清是非;堅(jiān)持事實(shí)不清、是非不明再調(diào)解,可能引發(fā)新的糾紛,影響法院審理案件的質(zhì)量;掌握的事實(shí)越多越有利于調(diào)解;事實(shí)不清、是非不明時(shí)達(dá)成調(diào)解法律后果嚴(yán)重;查明事實(shí)、分清是非與自愿原則、不違法原則一脈相承。建議以“事實(shí)清楚、是非分明”原則取代“查明事實(shí)、分清是非”原則。在適用調(diào)解方式審結(jié)案件的同時(shí),由于各種原因,訴訟調(diào)解侵害案外第三人合法利益的案件日益增多。訴訟調(diào)解阻礙第三人參與調(diào)解程序的原因在于訴訟調(diào)解是一種以當(dāng)事人處分權(quán)為主導(dǎo)、人民法院履行審判職責(zé)為輔的糾紛解決機(jī)制。訴訟當(dāng)事人達(dá)成調(diào)解協(xié)議,法院進(jìn)行司法確認(rèn)制作的民事調(diào)解書生效后,第三人認(rèn)為調(diào)解書侵害其合法權(quán)利時(shí)有案外第三人執(zhí)行異議、案外第三人執(zhí)行異議之訴、第三人申請(qǐng)?jiān)賹�、第三人撤銷之訴等救濟(jì)途徑。應(yīng)當(dāng)加強(qiáng)對(duì)案外第三人合法權(quán)益的保護(hù)�！罢{(diào)審合一”模式主要有四個(gè)弊端:容易使法官形成雙重身份而尷尬;會(huì)造成審判與調(diào)解價(jià)值的不和諧;容易使法律適用軟化,容易形成“有法不依”;影響自愿原則的落實(shí)。主張采用“調(diào)審分離”模式。
[Abstract]:Litigation mediation has the value of harmony, efficiency and benefit. It has the functions of thoroughly resolving disputes, saving judicial costs, restoring tense social relations and promoting social harmony. However, there are some disadvantages such as harming the litigant's litigation right, one party making concessions at the expense of lawful rights and interests, the judge being lazy to perform the judicial power conferred by law, etc. During the litigation period, the court overemphasizes mediation and weakens the judgment according to law. It will make the original judgment of the civil trial of the court wrong, sanction illegal, and the function of forming social rules be greatly compromised. Adjudication in accordance with the law should be the main way for the court to resolve legal disputes. The court should strengthen the rules through the adjudication of the case. We should treat the civil litigation mediation rationally, especially the mediation priority, and construct the correct relationship between mediation and judgment reasonably. The principle of "find out the facts and distinguish the right and wrong" has the following defects: only the court hearing can find out the facts; It is not in accordance with the litigation mechanism of mediation and is not appropriate as the principle of mediation; it is not conducive to saving litigation costs, reducing the efficiency of litigation and violating the economic principle of mediation; it does not help the parties to reach a mediation agreement. Contrary to the value orientation of judicial justice. However, not all cases can only be heard by the court before the court can find out the facts and distinguish between right and wrong; if the facts are not clear, the right or wrong may be re-conciliated, which may lead to new disputes. Affecting the quality of cases before the Court; the more facts at hand, the more conducive to mediation; the more ambiguous the facts, the more serious the legal consequences of reaching conciliation when the right or wrong is unknown; and the identification of the facts and the distinction between the principle of non-legality and the principle of voluntariness, It is suggested that the principle of "ascertaining facts and distinguishing between right and wrong" be replaced by the principle of "clear facts, clear right and wrong". The reason why litigation mediation hinders the third party from participating in mediation procedure is that litigation mediation is dominated by the right of disposition of the parties. A dispute resolution mechanism in which the people's court performs its judicial duties as a supplement. After the litigant has reached an agreement on mediation, and the civil mediation statement produced by the court for judicial confirmation has come into effect, When a third party considers that a mediation statement infringes upon his lawful rights, the third person who is outside the case shall execute the objection, and the third party shall apply for retrial, It is necessary to strengthen the protection of the legal rights and interests of the third party outside the case. There are four main drawbacks in the mode of "the unity of trial and trial": it is easy for judges to form double identities and embarrassment, which will lead to the disharmony of the value of trial and mediation. It is easy to soften the application of the law and to form the principle of "not abiding by the law".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.14

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 肖建華;楊兵;;對(duì)抗制與調(diào)解制度的沖突與融合——美國(guó)調(diào)解制度對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];比較法研究;2006年04期

2 李浩;;先行調(diào)解制度研究[J];江海學(xué)刊;2013年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 湖南省高級(jí)人民法院院長(zhǎng) 江必新;[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

2 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、法學(xué)博士 肖建國(guó);[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

3 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 范愉;[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1521117