發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-21 10:18

  本文選題：法院調(diào)解 + 成本收益分析　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目前,關(guān)于法院調(diào)解的研究成果大多僅沿著法解釋學(xué)研究進(jìn)路展開,未看到其背后隱藏的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益,從而出現(xiàn)重資源投入輕分配核算、重制度建構(gòu)輕選擇決策、重宏觀應(yīng)然輕微觀實(shí)然的現(xiàn)象。而經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的成本收益分析將為法院調(diào)解研究提供一個(gè)具有啟發(fā)意義的嶄新視角。法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)視野下,作為法院解決糾紛的兩種基本方式,法院調(diào)解與判決均被視為糾紛解決市場中的“產(chǎn)品”。當(dāng)事人選擇何種產(chǎn)品,是基于成本收益的衡量,即比較行動(dòng)的“投入成本”與行動(dòng)后的“產(chǎn)出利益”而作出選擇。對(duì)法院而言,提供何種產(chǎn)品,也同樣如此。在成本層面,通過比較法院調(diào)解與判決中當(dāng)事人成本與法院成本的顯成本與隱成本,在一般情況下,可以得出法院調(diào)解成本小于判決成本的結(jié)論,但對(duì)于需要多次調(diào)解、反復(fù)調(diào)解等花費(fèi)大量時(shí)間成本與人力成本的案件,這一結(jié)論是否成立則要視具體案件情況而定。在收益比較上,一方面,糾紛當(dāng)事人運(yùn)用法院調(diào)解與判決解決糾紛的預(yù)期利益不同,在判決中只關(guān)注系爭內(nèi)利益,而在法院調(diào)解中還著眼于系爭外利益;另一方面,我國判決受“終審不終”與“執(zhí)行難”等問題的影響,而法院調(diào)解具有不能上訴、難以再審、履行自愿性強(qiáng)與執(zhí)行效果較優(yōu)等特點(diǎn),法院調(diào)解的收益實(shí)效優(yōu)于判決。因此,基于理性人的前提假設(shè),在一般情況下,即除需要花費(fèi)大量時(shí)間成本與人力成本的案件,法院調(diào)解的預(yù)期收益與成本的差額大于判決預(yù)期收益與成本的差額,糾紛當(dāng)事人會(huì)選擇法院調(diào)解解決糾紛。在上述分析的基礎(chǔ)上,通過“啟動(dòng)模型”“合意模型”等法院調(diào)解成本收益分析模型,可獲得以下具有啟發(fā)意義的結(jié)論:判決成本的高低與雙方當(dāng)事人達(dá)成調(diào)解協(xié)議的可能性成正比;降低當(dāng)事人的預(yù)期有利于調(diào)解達(dá)成協(xié)議;調(diào)解者的行為對(duì)調(diào)解協(xié)議的達(dá)成有重要影響等。據(jù)此,文章得出發(fā)揮訴訟費(fèi)用杠桿作用、注重事實(shí)查明與證據(jù)交換、實(shí)行法院專職調(diào)解員制度等促進(jìn)法院調(diào)解發(fā)展的啟示。
[Abstract]:At present, most of the research results of court mediation are carried out along the path of legal hermeneutics, and the hidden economic benefits behind it are not seen. As a result, the emphasis on resources investment is less than on allocation accounting, and on system construction and decision making. Emphasis on the macro should be slight view of the reality of the phenomenon. The cost-benefit analysis in economics will provide a new perspective for the study of court mediation. In the view of law and economics, as two basic methods of dispute settlement, court mediation and judgment are regarded as "products" in the dispute settlement market. What kind of product the parties choose is based on the measurement of cost and benefit, that is, comparing the "input cost" of the action with the "output benefit" after the action. The same is true of what products are available to the court. At the cost level, by comparing the explicit and implicit costs between the parties' costs and the court costs in court mediation and judgment, we can draw the conclusion that the court mediation cost is less than the judgment cost in general, but for the need for multiple mediation, Whether this conclusion is valid or not depends on the specific circumstances of the case. On the one hand, on the one hand, the parties to a dispute use court mediation and judgment to resolve disputes in different expected interests, in the judgment only focus on internal interests, while in court mediation also focus on foreign interests; on the other hand, The judgment of our country is influenced by the problems of "final appeal" and "execution difficulty", and the court mediation has the characteristics of being unable to appeal, it is difficult to retry, the voluntary performance is strong and the effect of execution is better, and the actual effect of court mediation is better than that of judgment. Therefore, based on the premise of rational person, in general, the difference between expected benefit and cost of court mediation is greater than the difference between expected income and cost in adjudication, except for cases that require a large amount of time and labor costs. Parties to a dispute will choose court mediation to resolve the dispute. On the basis of the above analysis, through the "startup model" and "consensus model" and other court mediation cost-benefit analysis model, The following enlightening conclusions can be obtained: the cost of judgment is proportional to the possibility of the parties to reach a mediation agreement, and the reduction of the expectation of the parties is conducive to reaching an agreement through mediation; The behavior of the mediator has important influence on the reaching of the mediation agreement. Based on this, the paper draws the enlightenment of promoting the development of court mediation, such as exerting the leverage of litigation expenses, paying attention to the fact finding and evidence exchanging, and carrying out the system of full-time court mediators to promote the development of court mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 邵六益;;悖論與必然:法院調(diào)解的回歸(2003-2012)[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

2 朱金高;;再審事由的深度透析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2013年05期

3 吳英姿;;“調(diào)解優(yōu)先”:改革范式與法律解讀 以O(shè)市法院改革為樣本[J];中外法學(xué);2013年03期

4 王鳳濤;;年輕化與法官能力——法院對(duì)工作能力的需求與青年法官的回應(yīng)[J];河南工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年02期

5 李浩;;調(diào)解歸調(diào)解,審判歸審判:民事審判中的調(diào)審分離[J];中國法學(xué);2013年03期

6 蔡彥敏;;我國民事訴訟中的委托代理人制度[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

7 章武生;肖國玉;;法院調(diào)解與判決的關(guān)系[J];政法論壇;2012年06期

8 寧靜波;;訴訟還是和解:訴訟經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究述評(píng)[J];法律和社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年00期

9 呂世倫;陶菁;;審判前夜的調(diào)解——調(diào)解與審判關(guān)系的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)思考[J];求是學(xué)刊;2012年05期

10 唐力;;在“強(qiáng)制”與“合意”之間:我國訴訟調(diào)解制度的困境與出路[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2012年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1782005