發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-14 23:18

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 調(diào)解 審判 調(diào)審關(guān)系 調(diào)審合一 調(diào)審分離　出處：《中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：調(diào)解作為一項(xiàng)民事糾紛解決機(jī)制，在我國(guó)可謂源遠(yuǎn)流長(zhǎng)，調(diào)解素有“東方美譽(yù)”、“東方經(jīng)驗(yàn)”之稱。調(diào)解作為一種糾紛解決方式，在我國(guó)古代社會(huì)中發(fā)揮了無(wú)可替代的作用。本文所說(shuō)的調(diào)解主要指法院調(diào)解，調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系也主要指法院調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系。我國(guó)的法院調(diào)解發(fā)源于革命根據(jù)地時(shí)期。建國(guó)初期，由于當(dāng)時(shí)法律制度的不健全以及人們法律觀念的局限，調(diào)解一度成為法院解決糾紛的主要手段。調(diào)解在民事訴訟糾紛的解決中發(fā)揮了重要作用。改革開(kāi)放以后，隨著我國(guó)法制建設(shè)的不斷完善和人們法律觀念的不斷加強(qiáng)，以審判的方式解決民事糾紛逐漸受到重視。進(jìn)入20世紀(jì)以來(lái)，隨著案件數(shù)量的激增和對(duì)訴訟效率價(jià)值的追求，調(diào)解的價(jià)值再次受到重視。 然而，我國(guó)法院的調(diào)解制度還不完善，特別是我國(guó)法院對(duì)調(diào)解與審判關(guān)系的認(rèn)識(shí)上還存在不合理之處，這就導(dǎo)致了過(guò)度強(qiáng)調(diào)調(diào)解以及強(qiáng)制調(diào)解等現(xiàn)象的發(fā)生。如何正確認(rèn)識(shí)我國(guó)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系，并對(duì)我國(guó)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系進(jìn)行改革，使其成為民事訴訟中“一軟一硬”的兩種糾紛解決方式，共同發(fā)揮糾紛解決的作用，就成為我國(guó)目前民事訴訟改革所面對(duì)的首要問(wèn)題。 本文擬從以下六個(gè)方面對(duì)我國(guó)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系進(jìn)行分析： 首先，本文通過(guò)近幾年出現(xiàn)的“調(diào)解復(fù)興”現(xiàn)象和“100%調(diào)解”、“零判決”的現(xiàn)象，引出本文所要討論的問(wèn)題�！罢{(diào)解復(fù)興”是我國(guó)進(jìn)入21世紀(jì)以來(lái)，隨著訴訟案件的增多和人們對(duì)訴訟效率價(jià)值的追求所發(fā)生的一種必然現(xiàn)象，是對(duì)我國(guó)調(diào)解價(jià)值的再次肯定。然而“調(diào)解熱”所帶來(lái)的“100%調(diào)解”、“零判決”等一系列片面追求調(diào)解率以及強(qiáng)制調(diào)解的現(xiàn)象卻嚴(yán)重違背了調(diào)解的自愿與合法原則，違背了調(diào)解制度設(shè)計(jì)的初衷。所以我國(guó)的民事訴訟制度應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系進(jìn)行改革，使其成為民事訴訟中“一軟一硬”的兩種糾紛解決方式，共同發(fā)揮糾紛解決的作用。 其次，本文對(duì)我國(guó)從革命根據(jù)地時(shí)期到現(xiàn)在的調(diào)解與審判關(guān)系的歷史變遷進(jìn)行了分析。革命根據(jù)地時(shí)期的調(diào)審關(guān)系是調(diào)審結(jié)合，調(diào)解與審判不分，法官邊調(diào)邊判，其典型方式是“馬錫五審判方式”。建國(guó)之后，我國(guó)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系經(jīng)歷了四個(gè)發(fā)展階段：第一階段是從新中國(guó)成立后到1982年《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法（試行）》頒布之前，這一時(shí)期我國(guó)調(diào)解與審判的關(guān)系表現(xiàn)為調(diào)解為主、審判為輔；第二階段是從1982年《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法（試行）》頒布后到1991年正式頒布《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》之前，這一時(shí)期我國(guó)的調(diào)審關(guān)系表現(xiàn)為著重調(diào)解、審判補(bǔ)充；第三階段是從1991年正式頒布《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》到2002年第18次全國(guó)法院工作會(huì)議的召開(kāi)，這一時(shí)期我國(guó)的調(diào)審關(guān)系表現(xiàn)為自愿調(diào)解、調(diào)審并重；第四階段是從2002年第18次全國(guó)法院工作會(huì)議的召開(kāi)至今，此時(shí)我國(guó)的調(diào)審關(guān)系表現(xiàn)為調(diào)解復(fù)興，判決旁落。最后總結(jié)出我國(guó)不同時(shí)期調(diào)審關(guān)系的共性是重調(diào)輕判，調(diào)審合一。 第三，本文對(duì)我國(guó)“調(diào)審合一”的制度設(shè)計(jì)所存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了分析。調(diào)審主體的合一使得調(diào)解嚴(yán)重違背了自愿原則，，使法官產(chǎn)生預(yù)斷，破壞了審判的中立性，并使調(diào)解信息的保密性受到破壞。調(diào)審程序的合一使得調(diào)解的靈活性、高效性與審判的規(guī)范性、復(fù)雜性相互矛盾，使調(diào)解程序的不公開(kāi)性與審判程序的公開(kāi)性不相協(xié)調(diào)，并導(dǎo)致調(diào)解與審判的相互異化。法院制度設(shè)計(jì)中的審判責(zé)任追究機(jī)制使法官容易逃避做出判決，法官績(jī)效考評(píng)機(jī)制使法官熱衷于選擇調(diào)解。此外，調(diào)解的制度設(shè)計(jì)還存在一些問(wèn)題，如調(diào)解缺乏可操作性的規(guī)范，調(diào)解的案件適用范圍過(guò)寬，調(diào)解的時(shí)間期限不明確，反悔權(quán)不利于調(diào)解效率價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)等等。 第四，本文對(duì)我國(guó)目前有關(guān)調(diào)審關(guān)系改革的幾種觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了介紹。目前，國(guó)內(nèi)對(duì)調(diào)審關(guān)系改革主要有三種觀點(diǎn)：調(diào)解改革與加強(qiáng)論、調(diào)解取消與替代論、調(diào)審分離論。調(diào)審分離論又包括訴訟外調(diào)審分離和訴訟內(nèi)調(diào)審分離。相比之下，本文認(rèn)為訴訟內(nèi)調(diào)審分離更符合我國(guó)國(guó)情，具有現(xiàn)實(shí)性、穩(wěn)妥性和可行性。 第五，本文對(duì)我國(guó)當(dāng)前調(diào)審分離的趨勢(shì)進(jìn)行了分析。我國(guó)立法對(duì)調(diào)解與審判的適度分離主要表現(xiàn)為，設(shè)置了審前調(diào)解程序和部分案件的強(qiáng)制調(diào)解前置程序，以實(shí)現(xiàn)調(diào)審程序的分離，并對(duì)調(diào)審主體和信息的適度分離做出了規(guī)定。此外，各地法院的司法改革也紛紛對(duì)調(diào)審分離制度進(jìn)行了實(shí)踐嘗試。 最后，本文在以上分析的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)我國(guó)調(diào)審分離制度進(jìn)行了構(gòu)建。主要包括實(shí)現(xiàn)訴訟全過(guò)程的調(diào)審主體分離，建立專職調(diào)解員制度，重構(gòu)審前調(diào)解程序，實(shí)現(xiàn)庭審階段的調(diào)審程序分離，以及對(duì)其他制度進(jìn)行改革與完善等內(nèi)容。
[Abstract]:Mediation as a civil dispute settlement mechanism in China has a long history, known as "Oriental mediation reputation", "Oriental experience" said. Mediation as a way to resolve disputes, has played an irreplaceable role in the ancient society of China. The main court mediation mediation, the relationship between mediation and trial it mainly refers to the relationship between the court mediation and the trial. The court mediation in China originated in the revolutionary base. In the early days, due to the imperfect legal system and people's legal concept limits, mediation became the main means of resolving disputes. The court has played an important role in the mediation of disputes in civil litigation in the reform and opening up. Later, with the constant improvement of China's legal system and strengthen people's legal concepts, the trial to resolve civil disputes is paid attention to in twentieth Century, With the surge in the number of cases and the pursuit of the value of the efficiency of the lawsuit, the value of mediation has been paid more attention.
However, China's court mediation system is not perfect, especially our country court unreasonable there is understanding of the relationship between mediation and trial, which leads to excessive emphasis on Mediation and compulsory mediation and other phenomena. How to correctly understand China's mediation and trial, and the relationship of China's mediation and the trial reform of the civil procedure law become "soft and hard" two ways to resolve disputes, to play a role in dispute resolution, has become the most important problem in China's current civil litigation reform faces.
This article is to analyze the relationship between mediation and trial in the following six aspects:
First of all, this paper in recent years the "mediation Renaissance" and the phenomenon of the "100% reconciliation", "zero judgment" phenomenon, this article tries to discuss the problem. The "mediation revival" is our country since twenty-first Century, an inevitable phenomenon along with the increase in litigation and the pursuit of the value of litigation efficiency the value of China's mediation is affirmed again. "However the mediation" 100% hot "mediation", "zero judgment" and a series of one-sided pursuit of mediation rate of mandatory mediation and the phenomenon has seriously violated the legal principle of voluntary mediation and mediation, contrary to the original intention of the system design. So I China's civil litigation system should be the relationship between mediation and trial reform, the civil lawsuit "soft and hard" two ways to resolve disputes, to play a role in dispute resolution.
Secondly, this paper on China's revolutionary base period from historical changes to the relationship between mediation and trial now is analyzed. The revolutionary base time trial relationship is a combination of the trial, mediation and trial is not divided, the judge sentenced side edge, the typical way is "Temasek five trial mode". After the founding of the PRC in China, the relationship between mediation and trial has gone through four stages: the first stage is from 1982 to China after the establishment of the new "People's Republic of China civil procedural law (Trial)" before the promulgation of the relationship between China's mediation and trial, the period of performance for the mediation based, supplemented by the trial; the second stage is from 1982 "People's Republic of China civil litigation before the law (Trial) > after the promulgation of formally issued in 1991 to People's Republic of China" Civil Procedure Law ", the period of China's trial in relation to emphasize mediation and trial supplement; the third stage is from 1991 Held in People's Republic of China officially promulgated < Civil Procedure Law > 2002 eighteenth national working conference of the court, the period of China's trial in relation to voluntary mediation, the fourth stage is equal; since 2002 held the eighteenth National Conference of the court, the trial in China in relation to the revival of mediation the judgment, sidelined. Finally summarizes the different periods of China's trial relationship is common re adjusted sets, combined with trial.
Third, this paper on China's "trial in the combined system design" problems are analyzed. The main one makes a serious violation of the principle of voluntary mediation, the judge has destroyed the prejudge, neutrality of the judge, and the confidentiality of mediation information is destroyed. The trial program of make a mediation flexibility, normative efficiency and complexity of the trial, contradictory, openness of the mediation process is not open and the trial procedure is not coordinated, and lead to the dissimilation between mediation and trial court system. In the design of judicial accountability mechanism allows judges to escape verdict, the judge performance evaluation the judges are keen to choose mediation mechanism. In addition, the mediation system design there are still some problems, such as lack of operability of the mediation mediation norms, the scope of the case is too wide, the time period of mediation is not clear, go back Right is not conducive to the realization of the efficiency of mediation and so on.
Fourth, this paper introduces several viewpoints about the relationship between mediation and trial system reform in China. At present, the domestic exchange reform mainly has three viewpoints: mediation reform and strengthen mediation theory, cancellation and substitution theory, the separation theory. The separation theory and the separation and redeployment of litigation in civil procedure separation. In contrast, the separation in civil procedure which conforms to China's national conditions, realistic, safe and feasible.
Fifth, this paper analyzes China's current trend. The separation of appropriate separation in China's legislation on the mediation and trial mainly for setting mandatory pre-trial conciliation mediation before trial procedures and in some cases, in order to achieve the separation of mediation and trial procedures, and on the appropriate separation of trial subjects and information made the provisions of judicial reform. In addition, local courts have also on trial separation system of practice.
Finally, on the basis of analysis on China's trial separation system was constructed. Mainly realize the whole process of the trial proceedings the main separation, the establishment of full-time mediator system, reconstruction of pretrial mediation procedures, implementation of the trial phase of the trial separation procedures, and the reform and improvement of the content of he system.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 江偉,段厚省;論檢察機(jī)關(guān)提起民事訴訟[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2000年06期

2 趙欣,李英;關(guān)于完善民事案件普通管轄權(quán)的思考[J];貴陽(yáng)金筑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

3 哈書菊;民事訴訟中檢察機(jī)關(guān)公益訴權(quán)之探析[J];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年01期

4 廖榮興;;推定在民事訴訟中的運(yùn)用[J];湖南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

5 王丹;;從非法證據(jù)看偷錄偷拍的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];邊疆經(jīng)濟(jì)與文化;2006年04期

6 徐明;;論民事訴訟司法認(rèn)知對(duì)象的認(rèn)定[J];湖北成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

7 林巖龍;俞樂(lè)琴;;民事訴訟中證明責(zé)任分配及法律效果[J];科技經(jīng)濟(jì)市場(chǎng);2006年03期

8 張俊祥;;惡意醫(yī)療糾紛的處理[J];實(shí)用全科醫(yī)學(xué);2006年03期

9 閆麗杰;萬(wàn)樹(shù)良;;審判實(shí)踐中簡(jiǎn)易程序適用探析[J];黑龍江生態(tài)工程職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年05期

10 陳瑾;李媛媛;;論行政訴訟與民事訴訟的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)[J];貴州民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 張應(yīng)山;劉碧洲;;民事訴訟中檢察監(jiān)督制度的完善[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

2 陳新;;勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議處理與民事訴訟分離兩裁終決是最佳選擇[A];江蘇省勞動(dòng)學(xué)會(huì)換屆暨學(xué)術(shù)交流大會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

3 郜爾彬;;民事訴訟與行政訴訟舉證責(zé)任之比較[A];首屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2000年

4 呂樹(shù)軍;;關(guān)于民事訴訟中證人拒不作證法律責(zé)任的幾點(diǎn)思考[A];在審判工作中如何確保司法公正理論研討會(huì)論文專輯[C];2001年

5 毛永紅;;公益訴訟制度構(gòu)想[A];律師事業(yè)與和諧社會(huì)——第五屆中國(guó)律師論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2005年

6 劉萍;;淺談海事行政行為與民事訴訟[A];2006年度海事管理學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2006年

7 仇小松;;論股份公司中小股東權(quán)益的民事訴訟救濟(jì)[A];第二屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2001年

8 張小滿;;論鑒定結(jié)論在民事訴訟中的地位及規(guī)范[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

9 黃世德;;論《若干規(guī)定》設(shè)立的自認(rèn)制度之不足[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

10 何建生;;淺析對(duì)民事訴訟中所涉行政行為的處斷[A];第四屆中國(guó)律師論壇百篇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2004年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 晏向華;被告承認(rèn)侵權(quán)，還要查個(gè)水落石出？[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

2 孫蕾 馬寶軍;商標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓糾紛也適用于民事訴訟[N];中國(guó)改革報(bào);2005年

3 記者 郭宏鵬 實(shí)習(xí)生 王雄 通訊員劉宏;廈門思明區(qū)法院：小額民事訴訟最快一天結(jié)案[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

4 高郵市人民法院 龍啟祥;淺談我國(guó)民事訴訟的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[N];揚(yáng)州日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

5 魯克勇;民事訴訟三年未了 檢察建議促調(diào)結(jié)[N];法治快報(bào);2008年

6 本報(bào)記者 白龍;集眾人之智 用好“經(jīng)濟(jì)憲法”[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

7 新尋;禮來(lái)欲14億美元解決再普樂(lè)官司[N];醫(yī)藥經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2009年

8 河南省焦作市中級(jí)人民法院 博愛(ài)縣人民法院 郭春明　皇真理;民事訴訟級(jí)別管轄之我見(jiàn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

9 黃友健;不動(dòng)產(chǎn)“相鄰權(quán)”糾紛凸現(xiàn)[N];房地產(chǎn)時(shí)報(bào);2005年

10 雷茜;行政訴訟路堵了民事訴訟門開(kāi)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 鄭素一;民初民事訴訟的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

2 江濤;民事訴訟效率研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

3 印仕柏;民事訴訟中檢察權(quán)配置研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2010年

4 都本有;黨的十一屆三中全會(huì)以來(lái)民事訴訟模式改革研究[D];東北師范大學(xué);2005年

5 王小林;民事訴訟公開(kāi)法理研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

6 陳文華;民間規(guī)則在民事訴訟中的運(yùn)用[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

7 潘度文;我國(guó)民事訴訟中檢察機(jī)關(guān)角色研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

8 林雪標(biāo);腐敗資產(chǎn)跨境追回問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

9 寧?kù)o波;能動(dòng)司法下民事訴訟效率：時(shí)間、成本約束下的最優(yōu)準(zhǔn)確性[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

10 胡謙;清代民事糾紛的民間調(diào)處研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉佳章;論民事訴訟中的行政爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題處理[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

2 吳展才;論我國(guó)民事訴訟當(dāng)庭宣判[D];廣東商學(xué)院;2011年

3 賈紅營(yíng);我國(guó)民事訴訟證人制度存在問(wèn)題及完善對(duì)策[D];四川大學(xué);2004年

4 廖榮興;論民事訴訟中的推定[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

5 孫德軍;論我國(guó)民事訴訟審前程序的理性構(gòu)建[D];蘇州大學(xué);2010年

6 王湘程;民事訴訟誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2001年

7 李慧;具體行政行為對(duì)民事訴訟的法律影響[D];鄭州大學(xué);2010年

8 王文泳;民事訴訟禁反言規(guī)則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

9 楊文明;論民事訴訟書證收集制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2003年

10 胡自偉;論我國(guó)民事訴訟證人制度之改革與完善[D];南昌大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：1511859