發(fā)布時間：2018-02-26 21:19

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 法院調(diào)解 理念更新 模式選擇 制度完善　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：任何制度都是歷史的產(chǎn)物,法院調(diào)解制度也不例外,它脫胎于我國傳統(tǒng)調(diào)解制度,并與新民主主義革命實踐相結(jié)合,是新民主主義革命時期中國共產(chǎn)黨的司法創(chuàng)新,素有“東方經(jīng)驗”的美譽,開創(chuàng)了我國解紛方式的新篇章。尤其是在轉(zhuǎn)型時期利益關(guān)系、法律糾紛復(fù)雜化、多樣化的背景下,單一訴訟解紛方式已經(jīng)不能滿足人們的需求,法院調(diào)解作為多元化解紛方式的重要形式,以更便利、簡易、低廉優(yōu)點,成為我國社會糾紛解決體系的重要組成部分。 法院調(diào)解制度從創(chuàng)立之初至今數(shù)十年的實踐中,歷經(jīng)否定之否定的坎坷,即使是到了大興調(diào)解的今日,關(guān)于調(diào)解的爭論也難以塵埃落定。足以說明法院調(diào)解制度是我國解紛體系中一個始終繞不過的話題。不可否認(rèn),法院調(diào)解制度存在一定的不足,特別是隨著我國民事司法改革的深入,法院調(diào)解制度在指導(dǎo)理念、制度構(gòu)造、實踐運行中存在的問題顯現(xiàn),一定程度上影響了其功能的發(fā)揮,這與當(dāng)前形勢下法院調(diào)解被賦予的司法職能特別是政治職能相悖,引起國內(nèi)學(xué)者的廣泛關(guān)注。本文在歷史研究、對比研究、實證分析的基礎(chǔ)上,回顧法院調(diào)解制度的發(fā)展歷程、分析制度本身存在的問題,結(jié)合轉(zhuǎn)型時期的新要求,從不同層面尋求法院調(diào)解制度的完善進路,包括理念層面的更新、模式層面的構(gòu)建、制度層面的具體設(shè)計。任何制度的構(gòu)建和完善都是一個在歷史演進、理論研究、實踐探索過程中否定之否定的過程。所以,筆者沒有能力也不敢奢求法院調(diào)解制度完善工作的一勞永逸。但筆者相信,法院調(diào)解制度的改革方向不在于調(diào)解與判決非此即彼的二元對立,而在于二者長期并存、相互制衡、相互滲透的實踐。
[Abstract]:Any system is the product of history, and the court mediation system is no exception. It was born out of the traditional mediation system of our country and combined with the practice of the new democratic revolution. It is the judicial innovation of the Communist Party of China in the period of the new democratic revolution. The reputation of "Eastern experience" has opened a new chapter in the way of resolving disputes in our country, especially in the context of the interest relationship in the transitional period, the complexity of legal disputes, and diversification, the single litigation method of resolving disputes has been unable to meet the needs of people. As an important form of diversified dispute resolution, court mediation has become an important part of the social dispute resolution system in China with the advantages of convenience, simplicity and low cost. In the practice of the court mediation system from its inception to the present decades, it has experienced the ups and downs of negation, even though it has reached the present day of Daxing mediation. The controversy about mediation is also difficult to settle. It is enough to show that the mediation system of the court is a topic that can never be solved in China. Undeniably, there are certain deficiencies in the mediation system of the court. Especially with the deepening of civil judicial reform in our country, the problems existing in the guiding concept, system construction and practical operation of the court mediation system appear, which to some extent affect the function of the court mediation system. This is contrary to the judicial function given to the court mediation under the current situation, especially the political function, and has aroused the widespread concern of the domestic scholars. Based on the historical research, comparative study and empirical analysis, this paper reviews the development of the court mediation system. By analyzing the problems existing in the system itself and combining with the new requirements in the transitional period, we seek the way to improve the court mediation system from different levels, including the renewal of the concept level and the construction of the model level. Any system construction and perfection is a negative process in the process of historical evolution, theoretical research and practical exploration. The author does not have the ability and dare not expect the perfection of the court mediation system once and for all. However, the author believes that the direction of the reform of the court mediation system lies not in the dualistic opposition between mediation and judgment, but in the long-term coexistence and checks and balances between the two. The practice of infiltrating each other.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

2 姜霞,袁文峰;對我國現(xiàn)行民事訴訟調(diào)解制度的反思及重構(gòu)[J];北京青年政治學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年02期

3 連宏;儒家的和諧觀與中國傳統(tǒng)調(diào)解制度[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2005年02期

4 李喜蓮;;法院調(diào)解優(yōu)先的冷思考[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2010年02期

5 張志瀚;;第三人撤銷之訴制度初探[J];廈門大學(xué)法律評論;2007年01期

6 王亞新;;“再審之訴”的再辨析[J];法商研究;2006年04期

7 王福華;民事訴訟誠實信用原則論[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1999年04期

8 劉崢;重構(gòu)法院調(diào)解制度的法理分析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2001年04期

9 章武生;司法ADR之研究[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年02期

10 王紅巖;試論民事訴訟中的調(diào)審分立[J];法學(xué)評論;1999年03期

，

本文編號：1539708