【摘要】：在我國(guó),訴訟爆炸和司法資源緊張這一矛盾成為近年來(lái)理論和實(shí)務(wù)界廣泛關(guān)注的問(wèn)題,法院所面臨的訴訟壓力與日俱增,各地法院都不斷探索嘗試非訴糾紛解決的機(jī)制。在此基礎(chǔ)上,調(diào)解以其獨(dú)特優(yōu)勢(shì)和重要價(jià)值發(fā)揮出越來(lái)越重要的作用。特別是2012年新民訴法在122條新增了有關(guān)先行調(diào)解的規(guī)定,進(jìn)一步豐富和完善了我國(guó)的法院調(diào)解制度。 毋庸置疑,先行調(diào)解制度的規(guī)定是符合我國(guó)國(guó)情和時(shí)代發(fā)展趨勢(shì)的,它的產(chǎn)生是有歷史和現(xiàn)實(shí)根源的。雖然先行調(diào)解首次以立法予以明確,但很多地區(qū)法院的訴前調(diào)解工作的實(shí)踐,已經(jīng)為先行調(diào)解制度的設(shè)置奠定了基礎(chǔ)。先行調(diào)解制度的設(shè)立,有利于緩解法院的訴訟壓力,提高訴訟效率,減輕當(dāng)事人的訴累,還可以在一定程度上緩和我國(guó)法院調(diào)審合一的矛盾,有利于促進(jìn)社會(huì)和諧。但是,仍處于探索階段的先行調(diào)解制度,在司法實(shí)踐中,也不可避免的暴露出了一些弊端,亟需予以完善。 本文在對(duì)先行調(diào)解制度產(chǎn)生的歷史背景、設(shè)置的積極意義和適用先行調(diào)解應(yīng)遵循的原則簡(jiǎn)要介紹的基礎(chǔ)上,分析了先行調(diào)解制度的弊端,并進(jìn)一步提出完善建議,以期能夠更好地發(fā)揮先行調(diào)解的設(shè)置本意,更好地服務(wù)于司法實(shí)踐。對(duì)于先行調(diào)解制度的弊端,首要的問(wèn)題是必須界定清楚先行調(diào)解的性質(zhì)。對(duì)此立法并沒(méi)有明確的規(guī)定,學(xué)界的觀點(diǎn)也并不統(tǒng)一。筆者認(rèn)為,先行調(diào)解應(yīng)該定性為立案前的自愿調(diào)解。此外,立法上對(duì)先行調(diào)解制度的規(guī)定并無(wú)完整的制度體系和程序設(shè)計(jì),在司法實(shí)踐中存在損害當(dāng)事人訴權(quán)行使、調(diào)解成功率不高導(dǎo)致訴訟成本增加、先行調(diào)解被惡意適用和調(diào)解機(jī)構(gòu)不獨(dú)立、調(diào)解力量不足等諸多問(wèn)題。針對(duì)這些問(wèn)題,筆者從以下方面提出了觀點(diǎn)和建議。首先應(yīng)該在立法上明確先行調(diào)解的適用范圍和法律后果,對(duì)經(jīng)調(diào)解達(dá)成的調(diào)解協(xié)議,應(yīng)該在當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)的前提下通過(guò)制作調(diào)解書(shū)賦予強(qiáng)制力。在司法方面,應(yīng)該完善先行調(diào)解與訴訟程序的銜接,建議啟用“預(yù)立案”程序?qū)崿F(xiàn)調(diào)解和訴訟的無(wú)縫對(duì)接。同時(shí),要進(jìn)一步整合司法資源,不斷優(yōu)化先行調(diào)解工作的機(jī)構(gòu)配置,設(shè)置獨(dú)立的先行調(diào)解辦公室,并在人、財(cái)、物上給與適當(dāng)?shù)膬A斜,充分發(fā)揮先行調(diào)解快速、有效解決糾紛的優(yōu)勢(shì)。 總之,先行調(diào)解制度作為一種新型的調(diào)解制度,是順應(yīng)時(shí)代需求的產(chǎn)物,雖然目前還存在很多不盡如意的地方,但隨著法治的不斷發(fā)展,相信國(guó)家會(huì)出臺(tái)相應(yīng)的立法和司法解釋予以完善。
[Abstract]:In our country, the contradiction between the explosion of litigation and the shortage of judicial resources has become a widespread concern in the theoretical and practical circles in recent years. The court is facing increasing pressure of litigation, and the courts all over the world are constantly exploring the mechanism of non-litigation dispute resolution. On this basis, mediation plays a more and more important role with its unique advantages and important value. In particular, the new civil action law in 2012 added the provisions on mediation in advance in 122 articles, which further enriched and improved the court mediation system in our country. There is no doubt that the provisions of the first mediation system are in line with our national conditions and the trend of development of the times, and its emergence has historical and realistic roots. Although the first mediation is made clear by legislation for the first time, the practice of pre-litigation mediation in many district courts has laid the foundation for the establishment of the system. The establishment of the mediation system in advance is conducive to relieving the pressure of the court, improving the efficiency of litigation, alleviating the litigants' tiredness, and to a certain extent easing the contradiction of the unity of court investigation and trial in our country, which is conducive to promoting social harmony. However, the system of mediation in advance is still in the exploratory stage. In judicial practice, it inevitably exposes some disadvantages and needs to be perfected. On the basis of a brief introduction of the historical background, the positive significance of the establishment and the principles to be followed in the application of the antecedent mediation system, this paper analyzes the drawbacks of the antecedent mediation system, and puts forward further suggestions for its perfection. In order to better play the original intention of mediation, better serve the judicial practice. The most important problem is to define the nature of antecedent mediation. There is no clear stipulation about this legislation, and the views of academic circles are not uniform. The author believes that the first mediation should be defined as voluntary mediation before filing. In addition, there is no complete system and procedure design for the regulation of the first mediation system in the legislation. In the judicial practice, it damages the exercise of the litigant's right of action, and the low success rate of mediation leads to the increase of the litigation cost. Mediation in advance is maliciously applicable and mediation institutions are not independent, mediation power is insufficient and many other problems. In view of these problems, the author puts forward the views and suggestions from the following aspects. First of all, the scope of application and legal consequences of mediation should be clarified in legislation, and the mediation agreement reached through mediation should be enforced by making a mediation statement under the premise of the application of the parties. In the judicial aspect, we should perfect the connection between the first mediation and the litigation procedure, and suggest that the "pre-filing" procedure be used to realize the seamless docking between mediation and litigation. At the same time, it is necessary to further integrate judicial resources, constantly optimize the organization configuration of the advance mediation work, set up an independent mediation office in advance, and give proper preference to people, money, and materials, so as to give full play to the speed of leading mediation. The advantage of resolving disputes effectively. In short, as a new type of mediation system, the advance mediation system is the product of meeting the needs of the times. Although there are still many unsatisfactory places at present, but with the continuous development of the rule of law, I believe the state will introduce the corresponding legislative and judicial interpretation to improve.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(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10條

1 潘劍鋒;;民訴法修訂背景下對(duì)“訴調(diào)對(duì)接”機(jī)制的思考[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年03期

2 許少波;;先行調(diào)解的三重含義[J];海峽法學(xué);2013年01期

3 李政;;關(guān)于新修訂民事訴訟法“先行調(diào)解”的若干探討——以陜西丹鳳縣法院“訴調(diào)對(duì)接”為例[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

4 魏清;;淺析司法ADR制度在我國(guó)構(gòu)建之意義[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年08期

5 姜琪;丁盼;;我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度與美國(guó)法院附設(shè)調(diào)解制度的比較研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2013年08期

6 童翔燕;;論訴前調(diào)解制度的困境與出路[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年12期

7 岳昌茂;;淺論我國(guó)法院訴前調(diào)解制度之設(shè)置及其完善[J];內(nèi)江科技;2008年01期

8 張曉茹;;構(gòu)建中國(guó)強(qiáng)制調(diào)解制度的必要性和可行性——評(píng)《民事訴訟法》修正案草案第122條[J];民間法;2012年00期

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

10 周飛翔;;“重新回歸”視野下的法院調(diào)解利弊分析[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年07期

，

本文編號(hào)：2139196