發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-12 23:24

  本文選題：民事調(diào)解制度 + 傳統(tǒng)法律文化　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)正處于從傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)向現(xiàn)代社會(huì)、從社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)初期向社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展期的轉(zhuǎn)型時(shí)期。轉(zhuǎn)型期既是發(fā)展的重要戰(zhàn)略機(jī)遇期,同時(shí)也是社會(huì)矛盾凸顯期。根據(jù)我國(guó)法治發(fā)展歷程,調(diào)解制度以其特有的優(yōu)勢(shì)成為糾紛解決的重要選擇,然而由于社會(huì)變革的特殊性,這一時(shí)期社會(huì)所呈現(xiàn)出的糾紛表現(xiàn)出了新型性和多樣性的特點(diǎn),傳統(tǒng)的司法調(diào)解機(jī)制已經(jīng)不足以應(yīng)對(duì),因此,建立和完善民事司法調(diào)解制度是當(dāng)前以及今后一段時(shí)期內(nèi)我國(guó)化解矛盾糾紛,促進(jìn)社會(huì)和諧的重要目標(biāo)和任務(wù)。本文將立足于我國(guó)民事調(diào)解制度的淵源、國(guó)外新型調(diào)解制度以及我國(guó)司法改革現(xiàn)狀對(duì)完善現(xiàn)有民事司法調(diào)解制度提出相應(yīng)對(duì)策,希望對(duì)完善民事司法調(diào)解制度能有所裨益。本文除了引言和結(jié)論,共分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分,民事司法調(diào)解制度概述。首先,對(duì)民事司法調(diào)解制度的內(nèi)涵加以界定,剖析民事司法調(diào)解制度的具體特點(diǎn),概括介紹我國(guó)民事司法調(diào)解制度的外延,主要有法院主持的司法調(diào)解以及法院參與委托和確認(rèn)的調(diào)解;其次,追溯我國(guó)民事司法調(diào)解制度發(fā)展的思想淵源和發(fā)展歷程;最后,概括介紹國(guó)外幾種典型的民事司法調(diào)解制度。第二部分,當(dāng)下中國(guó)民事司法調(diào)解制度的現(xiàn)實(shí)困境。首先,介紹當(dāng)前司法調(diào)解制度所處的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境以及發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀;其次,介紹司法調(diào)解所面臨的困境:主要存在當(dāng)事人的自愿性受到干擾、法官的中立性模糊不清、調(diào)解程序的靈活性優(yōu)勢(shì)難以體現(xiàn)、讓步息訟與權(quán)利保護(hù)相矛盾四方面弊端。第三部分,以ADR模式重塑我國(guó)民事司法調(diào)解制度的可能性分析。首先,筆者概括介紹了司法ADR的概念與發(fā)展歷程與典型模式,與傳統(tǒng)訴訟程序相較而言,ADR在程序、糾紛解決機(jī)構(gòu)、糾紛裁判依據(jù)以及法律效力上都有較大不同;其次,介紹司法ADR的功能:分流案件、解決糾紛緩和沖突,保障當(dāng)事人實(shí)體正義;最后,分析其在中國(guó)建立的可行性:與中國(guó)文化相契合、與和諧社會(huì)相契合、有助于緩解了現(xiàn)行法院的辦案壓力、消除了現(xiàn)行法院調(diào)解的弊端、減輕了當(dāng)事人的訴訟成本,也有利于改善民眾的司法感受。第四部分,ADR模式為主體的民事司法調(diào)解制度完善的具體路徑。即如何構(gòu)建我國(guó)法院調(diào)解模式:包括確保當(dāng)事人的憲法權(quán)利、相關(guān)程序銜接、選任主持ADR活動(dòng)的人員、完善訴前調(diào)解制度、中立第三方評(píng)估制度的構(gòu)建、規(guī)范法院委托調(diào)解與司法確認(rèn)程序以及發(fā)展訴前保全措施以保障司法調(diào)解的順利進(jìn)行。
[Abstract]:China is in a period of transition from traditional society to modern society and from the initial stage of socialist market economy to the period of development of socialist market economy.The transition period is not only the important strategic opportunity period of development, but also the prominent period of social contradiction.According to the development of our country's rule of law, the mediation system has become an important choice for dispute resolution with its unique advantages. However, due to the particularity of social change, the disputes presented in this period show the characteristics of new style and diversity.The traditional judicial mediation mechanism is not enough to deal with it. Therefore, establishing and perfecting the civil judicial mediation system is an important goal and task for resolving contradictions and disputes and promoting social harmony in China at present and in the future.This article will be based on the origin of civil mediation system in China, foreign new mediation system and the current situation of judicial reform in China to improve the existing civil judicial mediation system to put forward the corresponding countermeasures, hoping to improve the civil judicial mediation system can be beneficial.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of civil judicial mediation system.First of all, the connotation of civil judicial mediation system is defined, the specific characteristics of civil judicial mediation system are analyzed, and the extension of civil judicial mediation system is introduced.There are mainly judicial mediation presided over by the court and mediation commissioned and confirmed by the court; secondly, the ideological origin and development process of the development of civil judicial mediation system in China are traced back; finally,This paper introduces several typical civil judicial mediation systems abroad.The second part, the present Chinese civil judicial mediation system's realistic predicament.First of all, it introduces the current political, economic environment and current situation of the judicial mediation system. Secondly, it introduces the dilemma that the judicial mediation faces: the voluntary nature of the main parties is interfered with, the neutrality of the judge is unclear.The flexibility advantage of mediation procedure is difficult to embody, and there are four disadvantages in conciliatory litigation and right protection.The third part analyzes the possibility of reshaping China's civil judicial mediation system with ADR model.Firstly, the author introduces the concept, development course and typical model of judicial ADR, which is different from the traditional litigation procedure in procedure, dispute settlement mechanism, dispute adjudication basis and legal effect.This paper introduces the functions of judicial ADR: diverting cases, resolving disputes and alleviating conflicts, and safeguarding the substantive justice of the parties. Finally, it analyzes the feasibility of establishing judicial ADR in China: it is compatible with Chinese culture and harmonious society.It helps to relieve the pressure of the current court case, eliminate the malpractice of the current court mediation, reduce the litigant's litigation cost, and improve the people's judicial feeling.The fourth part is ADR model as the main body of civil judicial mediation system perfect specific path.That is, how to construct the court mediation model of our country: to ensure the constitutional rights of the parties, to link up the relevant procedures, to select and preside over the ADR activities, to perfect the pre-litigation mediation system, and to construct the neutral third-party evaluation system.Standardize the procedure of court entrusting mediation and judicial confirmation, and develop pre-litigation preservation measures to ensure the smooth progress of judicial mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳立峰;;論構(gòu)建我國(guó)司法ADR制度的法理基礎(chǔ):法律文化與法律傳統(tǒng)[J];未來與發(fā)展;2012年08期

2 蘇力;;關(guān)于能動(dòng)司法與大調(diào)解[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2010年01期

3 肖建國(guó);;司法ADR建構(gòu)中的委托調(diào)解制度研究——以中國(guó)法院的當(dāng)代實(shí)踐為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年03期

4 范愉;;訴前調(diào)解與法院的社會(huì)責(zé)任 從司法社會(huì)化到司法能動(dòng)主義[J];法律適用;2007年11期

5 閆慶霞;;人民調(diào)解前置制度之反思——以民事程序選擇權(quán)為討論的出發(fā)點(diǎn)[J];法學(xué)家;2007年03期

6 楊嚴(yán)炎;;美國(guó)司法ADR之考察[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年04期

7 康懷宇;;人民調(diào)解的兩條道路——法治亦或強(qiáng)制[J];理論與改革;2006年03期

8 郭小冬;我國(guó)司法終極性的缺失與確立[J];河北法學(xué);2004年01期

9 季衛(wèi)東;世紀(jì)之交日本司法改革的述評(píng)[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2002年01期

10 梁鳳榮;論我國(guó)古代傳統(tǒng)的司法調(diào)解制度[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1741910