我国民事法院调解模式研究
|
摘要
法院调解模式是对法院调解运行状况的概括性、一般性研究,本文从法院调解与审判关系的两种模式出发,在对比不同国家和地区法院调解运作模式的基础上,在介绍我国法院调解模式的特点后,通过对调审相对分离在我国法院调解改革中的必要性和可行性的分析,指出我国在重塑法院调解模式的过程中,可以参照的原则和改革的方向,进而建立和完善相关制度,使法院调解与审判的关系趋于合理,进而有效地发挥各自的作用。
本文介绍了调审分离和调审合一两种不同的法院调解模式,概括分析了两种模式在运行过程中的不同特点,从整体上对两种模式不同的侧重点和优势劣势做一个简单梳理,从而形成对两种不同模式特点和运行方式的认识。然后介绍分析了不同国家和地区类似法院调解制度的运行模式。通过对美国、德国、法国、日本和我国台湾地区的法院调解制度的比较分析,概括这些代表性国家法院调解所采用的模式,了解其法院调解模式运行的状况、效率性,发现其模式设计的优点,从而为我国法院调解模式的改革提供有益的借鉴。同时,在关照我国法院调解模式运行的特点和其在实践中的运行状况的基础上,指出其在司法实践中所出现的诸如强制调解等问题,以明确需要改革和完善的方向,以使得我国法院调解模式的重塑更加具有针对性、目的性。通过充分论证我国施行调审分离模式的条件和优势,说明了为什么要施行调审分离模式,施行调审分离模式必要性的体现。最后对我国现阶段施行调审分离模式的实现途径和方式、并完善在这种模式下的相关制度提出建议。
The mode of court mediation is a topic on the general research of court mediation, this essay is based on two modes of the relationship between court mediation and trial, and then, contrast the mode of court mediation of different countries and regions, from introducing the status in our country and analyzing the necessity and feasibility of the separation between mediation and trial in the reform of court mediation, put forward some suggestions about the principle and direction to rebuild and perfect the system. In this way, the relationship between court mediation and trial will be reasonable, and then both of them will play its role.
This essay introduces two different kinds of the mode of court mediation:the fusing of mediation and trial, another, the separation between mediation and trial and then, generally analysis the different characteristic of them, contrast the advantage and disadvantage of them, combs the focus of them. In this way, we can have an overview of different operation modes of them. Then I make a comparative analysis of the mode of court mediation. It mainly explores the operation modes in different countries and regions. From a comparative analysis of America, Germany, France, Japan and Taiwan province of China, we can generalize the mode of court mediation, we can get a recognition of the status and the efficiency of its system, discover the advantage of its system. In this way, we can offer a template for the reform of court mediation in our country. At the same time, in thinking about the characteristic of the mode of court mediation and the status of this system, I put forward the problems in judicial practice to ensure the target of the reform. From that, the rebuilding of the mode of court mediation will be more targeted and motivated. And then, I demonstrate the condition and advantage in putting the separation mode of mediation and trail into practice, demonstrate the representation of the necessity. At last, I put forward some suggestions about the way to realize separating mediation and trial, and then perfect some relative systems under this mode.
本文介绍了调审分离和调审合一两种不同的法院调解模式,概括分析了两种模式在运行过程中的不同特点,从整体上对两种模式不同的侧重点和优势劣势做一个简单梳理,从而形成对两种不同模式特点和运行方式的认识。然后介绍分析了不同国家和地区类似法院调解制度的运行模式。通过对美国、德国、法国、日本和我国台湾地区的法院调解制度的比较分析,概括这些代表性国家法院调解所采用的模式,了解其法院调解模式运行的状况、效率性,发现其模式设计的优点,从而为我国法院调解模式的改革提供有益的借鉴。同时,在关照我国法院调解模式运行的特点和其在实践中的运行状况的基础上,指出其在司法实践中所出现的诸如强制调解等问题,以明确需要改革和完善的方向,以使得我国法院调解模式的重塑更加具有针对性、目的性。通过充分论证我国施行调审分离模式的条件和优势,说明了为什么要施行调审分离模式,施行调审分离模式必要性的体现。最后对我国现阶段施行调审分离模式的实现途径和方式、并完善在这种模式下的相关制度提出建议。
The mode of court mediation is a topic on the general research of court mediation, this essay is based on two modes of the relationship between court mediation and trial, and then, contrast the mode of court mediation of different countries and regions, from introducing the status in our country and analyzing the necessity and feasibility of the separation between mediation and trial in the reform of court mediation, put forward some suggestions about the principle and direction to rebuild and perfect the system. In this way, the relationship between court mediation and trial will be reasonable, and then both of them will play its role.
This essay introduces two different kinds of the mode of court mediation:the fusing of mediation and trial, another, the separation between mediation and trial and then, generally analysis the different characteristic of them, contrast the advantage and disadvantage of them, combs the focus of them. In this way, we can have an overview of different operation modes of them. Then I make a comparative analysis of the mode of court mediation. It mainly explores the operation modes in different countries and regions. From a comparative analysis of America, Germany, France, Japan and Taiwan province of China, we can generalize the mode of court mediation, we can get a recognition of the status and the efficiency of its system, discover the advantage of its system. In this way, we can offer a template for the reform of court mediation in our country. At the same time, in thinking about the characteristic of the mode of court mediation and the status of this system, I put forward the problems in judicial practice to ensure the target of the reform. From that, the rebuilding of the mode of court mediation will be more targeted and motivated. And then, I demonstrate the condition and advantage in putting the separation mode of mediation and trail into practice, demonstrate the representation of the necessity. At last, I put forward some suggestions about the way to realize separating mediation and trial, and then perfect some relative systems under this mode.
引文
[1]江伟主编.民事诉讼法学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2007.213
[2]三个月章.日本民事诉讼法[M].汪一凡译.台北：台湾五南图书出版有限公司,1997.395
[3]沈达明.比较民事诉讼法：下册[M].北京：中信出版社,1991.166
[4]宋冰主编.读本：美国与德国的司法制度及司法程序[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.297
[5]周翠.中国与德国民事司法的比较分析[J].法律科学,2008,(05)
[6]Peter L. Murray & Rolf Sturner, German Civil Justice [M].Carolina Academic Press,2004.247
[7]张卫平、陈刚.法国民事诉讼法导论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.513
[8]孔令章.日美法院附设调解与我国法院调解的比较研究[G].见：田平安主编.比较民事诉讼论丛：第1卷.北京：法律出版社,2005
[9]闫庆霞.法院调解制度研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.27
[10]王亚新.对抗与判定——日本民事诉讼的基本结构[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2002.252
[11]齐树洁.台湾法院调解制度的最新发展[J].台湾研究集刊,2001,(01)
[12]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[13]李浩.论法院调解中程序法和实体法约束的双重软化[J].法学评论,1996,(04)
[14]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[15]江伟.中国民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.404
[16]章武生.民事司法现代化的探索[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.59-60
[17]棚濑孝雄.纠纷解决与审判制度[M].王亚新译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994.54
[18]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[19]李约瑟.李约瑟文集[M].沈阳：辽宁科学技术出版社,1988.338
[20]章武生.民事司法现代化的探索[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.48
[21]三个月章.日本民事诉讼法[M].汪一凡译.台北：台湾五南图书出版有限公司,1997.395
[22]波斯纳.法理学问题[M].苏力译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1984.1
[23]王亚新.论民事、经济审判方式的改革[J].中国社会科学,1994,(01)
[24]王盼,程政举等著.审判独立与司法公正[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2002.228-229
[25]江伟.民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.285
[26]王韶华.试析民事诉讼中的超职权主义现象[J].中外法学,1991,(02)
[27]江伟.中国民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.419
[28]张卫平、齐树洁主编.司法改革评论：第五辑[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社,2007.25
[29]汤维建.论构建我国民事诉讼中的自足性审前程序——审前程序和庭审程序并立的改革观[J].政法论坛,2004,(04)
[30]沈达明.比较民事诉讼法：上册[M].北京：中信出版社,1992.26-30
[2]三个月章.日本民事诉讼法[M].汪一凡译.台北：台湾五南图书出版有限公司,1997.395
[3]沈达明.比较民事诉讼法：下册[M].北京：中信出版社,1991.166
[4]宋冰主编.读本：美国与德国的司法制度及司法程序[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.297
[5]周翠.中国与德国民事司法的比较分析[J].法律科学,2008,(05)
[6]Peter L. Murray & Rolf Sturner, German Civil Justice [M].Carolina Academic Press,2004.247
[7]张卫平、陈刚.法国民事诉讼法导论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.513
[8]孔令章.日美法院附设调解与我国法院调解的比较研究[G].见：田平安主编.比较民事诉讼论丛：第1卷.北京：法律出版社,2005
[9]闫庆霞.法院调解制度研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.27
[10]王亚新.对抗与判定——日本民事诉讼的基本结构[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2002.252
[11]齐树洁.台湾法院调解制度的最新发展[J].台湾研究集刊,2001,(01)
[12]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[13]李浩.论法院调解中程序法和实体法约束的双重软化[J].法学评论,1996,(04)
[14]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[15]江伟.中国民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.404
[16]章武生.民事司法现代化的探索[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.59-60
[17]棚濑孝雄.纠纷解决与审判制度[M].王亚新译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994.54
[18]李浩.民事审判中的调审分离[J].法学研究,1996,(04)
[19]李约瑟.李约瑟文集[M].沈阳：辽宁科学技术出版社,1988.338
[20]章武生.民事司法现代化的探索[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.48
[21]三个月章.日本民事诉讼法[M].汪一凡译.台北：台湾五南图书出版有限公司,1997.395
[22]波斯纳.法理学问题[M].苏力译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1984.1
[23]王亚新.论民事、经济审判方式的改革[J].中国社会科学,1994,(01)
[24]王盼,程政举等著.审判独立与司法公正[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2002.228-229
[25]江伟.民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.285
[26]王韶华.试析民事诉讼中的超职权主义现象[J].中外法学,1991,(02)
[27]江伟.中国民事诉讼法专论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.419
[28]张卫平、齐树洁主编.司法改革评论：第五辑[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社,2007.25
[29]汤维建.论构建我国民事诉讼中的自足性审前程序——审前程序和庭审程序并立的改革观[J].政法论坛,2004,(04)
[30]沈达明.比较民事诉讼法：上册[M].北京：中信出版社,1992.26-30
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |