發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-01 03:23

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 調(diào)解 法院調(diào)解 法院附設(shè)調(diào)解 替代性糾紛解決機(jī)制　出處：《天津商業(yè)大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法院參與調(diào)解主要發(fā)揮調(diào)解發(fā)起者、調(diào)解主持者和調(diào)解結(jié)果確認(rèn)者三種功能。從調(diào)解和司法各自的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行考察,調(diào)解屬于社會(huì)自治領(lǐng)域的糾紛解決方式,而司法則是對(duì)國(guó)家公權(quán)力的運(yùn)用。法院在參與調(diào)解時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)被允許為調(diào)解提供便利,卻不可將司法權(quán)運(yùn)用于參與調(diào)解的過(guò)程之中。法院應(yīng)當(dāng)發(fā)揮調(diào)解發(fā)起者功能和大部分主持者功能,而調(diào)解結(jié)果確認(rèn)者功能和以調(diào)代審的主持者功能由于被混入了公權(quán)力意志,則應(yīng)當(dāng)被堅(jiān)決避免。從調(diào)解的詞源和我國(guó)調(diào)解的歷史考察,我國(guó)對(duì)于調(diào)解人的權(quán)威性要求高,對(duì)調(diào)解結(jié)果的公正性也有需求,這使得我國(guó)尚不能完全放棄法院的調(diào)解主持者功能,但基于降低司法機(jī)關(guān)壓力的考量,應(yīng)當(dāng)限制法院主持者功能的發(fā)揮。本文基于基礎(chǔ)理論的比較研究,分析不同調(diào)解類型間的功能差異、造成差異的文化原因、我國(guó)的功能建議,這些部分組成了本文論述的主要內(nèi)容。首先,從詞源、歷史和法理三個(gè)視角對(duì)理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行論述,從而看到東西方社會(huì)對(duì)于調(diào)解問(wèn)題,在概念理解、歷史形成等多個(gè)方面存在的差異;其次,比較分析三種功能在不同調(diào)解類型中的存在形態(tài);再次,對(duì)于這些功能存在差異的原因進(jìn)行文化分析,包括公權(quán)力介入的歷史差異、對(duì)于調(diào)解人權(quán)威性的要求存在差異、對(duì)于調(diào)解實(shí)體結(jié)果的公正程度之要求存在差異等方面,還包括從私權(quán)自治意識(shí)的差異、對(duì)公權(quán)力介入私人自治領(lǐng)域的警惕性存在差異,以及期待調(diào)解期待目標(biāo)的差異等角度進(jìn)行分析。通過(guò)分析產(chǎn)生這些現(xiàn)象的文化原因,找到法院在調(diào)解中功能的差異與東西方文化差異兩者之間的聯(lián)系;最后,基于制度比較和文化差異兩方面的分析,提出我國(guó)法院在調(diào)解中應(yīng)當(dāng)具備的功能。
[Abstract]:Court participation in mediation mainly plays three functions: the initiator of mediation, the moderator of mediation and the confirmer of the result of mediation. From the aspects of mediation and judicature, mediation is a kind of dispute resolution method in the field of social autonomy. Justice is the use of the public power of the state. When the court participates in mediation, it should be allowed to facilitate mediation. However, judicial power should not be applied in the process of participating in mediation. The court should play the role of initiator of mediation and most of the function of moderator. However, the function of mediating result confirmer and the moderator function of adjusting trial should be avoided from the etymology of mediation and the history of mediation in our country because it is mixed into the will of public power. Our country has a high demand for the authority of mediators and the fairness of mediation results, which makes our country can not completely give up the mediation moderator function of the court, but based on the consideration of reducing the pressure of the judicial organs. Based on the comparative study of basic theories, this paper analyzes the functional differences between different types of mediation, the cultural reasons for the differences, and the functional suggestions of our country. These parts constitute the main content of this paper. Firstly, from the three perspectives of etymology, history and jurisprudence, the theoretical basis is discussed, so as to see the eastern and western society in the concept of mediation in understanding. The differences in many aspects such as the formation of history; Secondly, the existence of three functions in different types of mediation is compared and analyzed. Thirdly, cultural analysis is carried out on the reasons of these differences, including the historical differences of public power intervention, and the differences on the authority requirements of mediators. There are differences in the demands for the degree of justice of the mediation entity, including the differences in the consciousness of private autonomy and the vigilance of public power in the field of private autonomy. By analyzing the cultural reasons of these phenomena, we can find the connection between the function difference of court in mediation and the cultural difference between East and West. Finally, based on the analysis of institutional comparison and cultural differences, the author puts forward the functions that Chinese courts should have in mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 肖建華;楊兵;;對(duì)抗制與調(diào)解制度的沖突與融合——美國(guó)調(diào)解制度對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];比較法研究;2006年04期

2 邱星美;;當(dāng)代調(diào)解制度比較研究[J];比較法研究;2009年04期

3 潘劍鋒;劉哲瑋;;論法院調(diào)解與糾紛解決之關(guān)系——從構(gòu)建和諧社會(huì)的角度展開(kāi)[J];比較法研究;2010年04期

4 王福華;;現(xiàn)代調(diào)解制度若干問(wèn)題研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2009年06期

5 曾令健;;承繼·契合·溝通——結(jié)構(gòu)主義視角下的人民調(diào)解[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2009年06期

6 周永坤;;論強(qiáng)制性調(diào)解對(duì)法治和公平的沖擊[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年03期

7 毛淑玲;;法院調(diào)解與法院附設(shè)調(diào)解[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年04期

8 章武生;司法ADR之研究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年02期

9 韓秀桃;《教民榜文》所見(jiàn)明初基層里老人理訟制度[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年03期

10 孫泊生;美國(guó)法院的調(diào)解制度[J];人民司法;1999年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 伍俊斌;公民社會(huì)建構(gòu)的基礎(chǔ)理論研究[D];中共中央黨校;2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1480799