本文選題：民事起訴權(quán) + 民事調(diào)解�。� 參考：《華僑大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：人類社會在發(fā)展進(jìn)步的同時一直伴隨著各種各樣的社會糾紛，如何有效地解決糾紛是人類社會發(fā)展的永恒課題之一，而公力救濟(jì)無疑是現(xiàn)代法治社會中最權(quán)威最有效的解決方式，從民事訴訟的角度來看，人們尋求公力救濟(jì)、維護(hù)自己合法權(quán)益的起點(diǎn)就是民事起訴權(quán)的有效行使。然而，隨著社會各方面的劇烈變化，民事糾紛數(shù)量的激增，起訴門檻過高，使得當(dāng)事人的起訴權(quán)得不到有效保障的問題一直困擾著司法界。因此，本文主要針對“起訴難”這個無論是實(shí)踐層面上還是法律層面上一直困擾我國司法界的老大難問題，就如何解決該問題及有效保障當(dāng)事人民事起訴權(quán)的順利行使，提出相關(guān)的解決思路和建議。 本文除了引言和結(jié)論外，正文由四個部分組成。 第一部分，主要從起訴權(quán)與民事訴權(quán)的關(guān)系出發(fā)，通過對起訴權(quán)的定義、性質(zhì)及目的的解讀，以及民事訴權(quán)相關(guān)學(xué)說的評析，闡明起訴權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)理論，進(jìn)而為下文的論述奠定理論基礎(chǔ)。 第二部分，著眼于我國立法和實(shí)踐越來越重視法院調(diào)解這一糾紛解決方式進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致調(diào)解的過度擴(kuò)張的趨勢，，尤其是新《民事訴訟法》增加的“先行調(diào)解”法律規(guī)定以及近年來出臺的“調(diào)解優(yōu)先”司法政策，反映出對當(dāng)事人起訴權(quán)的沖擊及起訴權(quán)與調(diào)解權(quán)的內(nèi)在緊張，進(jìn)而從獨(dú)立性和互補(bǔ)性兩個方面對起訴權(quán)和調(diào)解權(quán)的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了探討，最后對調(diào)解優(yōu)先背景下起訴權(quán)的地位進(jìn)行重申，包括正確適用先行調(diào)解、理性對待調(diào)解優(yōu)先以及建構(gòu)適度的調(diào)審分離模式。 第三部分，主要從立法層面對民事糾紛的可訴范圍這個較為具體的問題進(jìn)行討論，剖析其在我國民事起訴權(quán)保障過程中存在的不足，通過對其與法院主管范圍的辨析以及糾紛可訴性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重新認(rèn)定，進(jìn)而對其進(jìn)行完善以更好地解決訴訟實(shí)務(wù)中的“起訴難”問題。 第四部分，仍然是從立法層面對當(dāng)事人民事起訴權(quán)保障過程中存在的另一個較為具體的問題即民事起訴條件進(jìn)行探討，通過對起訴要件與訴訟要件的概念辨析，指出立法對起訴條件的規(guī)定中存在的缺陷和不足，進(jìn)而重新設(shè)置我國的民事起訴條件，并對我國的民事立案審查制度進(jìn)行相應(yīng)地改革。
[Abstract]:The development and progress of human society has been accompanied by a variety of social disputes, how to effectively resolve disputes is one of the eternal issues of human social development. Public relief is undoubtedly the most authoritative and most effective way to solve the problem in the modern society of rule of law. From the point of view of civil litigation, the starting point for people to seek public relief and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests is the effective exercise of civil right of action. However, with the drastic changes in various aspects of society, the number of civil disputes surge, the threshold of prosecution is too high, so that the litigants can not be effectively protected the right of action has been puzzling the judicial community. Therefore, this article mainly aims at the "prosecution difficulty", whether in practice or in the legal level, which has been puzzling the judicial circles of our country, how to solve this problem and how to effectively guarantee the smooth exercise of the litigants' civil right of action. Put forward the relevant solutions and suggestions. In addition to the introduction and conclusions, the text consists of four parts. The first part, from the relationship between the right of action and the right of civil action, expounds the basic theory of the right of action through the interpretation of the definition, nature and purpose of the right of action, as well as the analysis of the relevant theories of the right of civil action. Then lay a theoretical foundation for the following discussion. The second part, focusing on our legislation and practice, pay more and more attention to court mediation, which leads to the excessive expansion of mediation. In particular, the new Civil procedure Law has added the legal provisions of "mediation first" and the judicial policy of "mediation first" issued in recent years, which reflects the impact on the litigant's right to sue and the inherent tension between the right of prosecution and the right of mediation. Then the relationship between the right of prosecution and the right of mediation is discussed from the aspects of independence and complementarity. Finally, the status of the right of action in the context of priority mediation is reiterated, including the correct application of mediation in advance. Rational treatment of mediation priority and the construction of a moderate mode of separation of trial. The third part mainly discusses the scope of civil disputes from the legislative level, analyzes its shortcomings in the process of safeguarding the right of action in China. Through the analysis of the scope of its competence from the court and the redetermination of the standard of litigability of disputes, it is further improved to solve the problem of "difficulty in litigation" in litigation practice. The fourth part, is still from the legislative level to the litigants civil standing right safeguard process existence another more concrete question, namely the civil lawsuit condition carries on the discussion, through to the lawsuit element and the lawsuit element concept differentiation analysis. This paper points out the defects and deficiencies in the provisions of the legislation on the prosecution conditions, and then sets up the civil prosecution conditions of our country, and carries on the corresponding reform to the civil filing and examining system of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華僑大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.12

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 梁平;;“大調(diào)解”銜接機(jī)制的理論建構(gòu)與實(shí)證探究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2011年05期

2 傅郁林;;中國民事訴訟立案程序的功能與結(jié)構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)家;2011年01期

3 趙鋼,王杏飛;我國法院調(diào)解制度的新發(fā)展——對《關(guān)于人民法院民事調(diào)解工作若干問題的規(guī)定》的初步解讀[J];法學(xué)評論;2005年06期

4 相慶梅;;民事糾紛可訴性問題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2009年03期

5 畢玉謙;;民事訴訟起訴要件與訴訟系屬之間關(guān)系的定位[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年04期

6 彭世忠;;能動司法視野下民事調(diào)解改革的徑向選擇——對某些地方法院追求“零判決”現(xiàn)象的反思[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

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

8 宋朝武;;民事訴訟受理制度改造的理性視角[J];法學(xué)論壇;2007年03期

9 李德恩;;大調(diào)解實(shí)踐背景下的立案調(diào)解機(jī)制研究[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年05期

10 劉晴輝;試析訴訟權(quán)保障的起點(diǎn)——從民事訴訟起訴條件看公民訴訟權(quán)保障[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社科版);2005年02期

本文編號：2113682