發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-20 01:22

  本文選題：先行調(diào)解 + 訴訟調(diào)解��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的持續(xù)發(fā)展,人與人之間各種利益的摩擦頻繁,民事案件呈現(xiàn)出新的特點(diǎn),不僅在數(shù)量上呈爆炸式增長(zhǎng),案件類型也日趨多樣化復(fù)雜化�；�于我國(guó)訴訟調(diào)解的復(fù)興、民事審判由調(diào)審合一到調(diào)審分離的走向以及外國(guó)法院附設(shè)ADR模式的影響，先行調(diào)解制度被引入民事訴訟糾紛解決機(jī)制之中。 新民事訴訟法將先行調(diào)解制度納入其中，使先行調(diào)解正式確立為民事程序機(jī)制，為訴訟當(dāng)事人提供了新的糾紛解決途徑。由于是首次出現(xiàn)，缺少具體規(guī)定，對(duì)于先行調(diào)解本身的概念，法律未予以明確。作為一項(xiàng)新興的制度，我們研究它，需要明確它，結(jié)合相關(guān)法律規(guī)定、司法解釋以及相關(guān)學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)，我們對(duì)先行調(diào)解進(jìn)行界定。就概念而言，應(yīng)是當(dāng)事人將民事糾紛訴之法院后，法院在先于立案階段，對(duì)具有調(diào)解可能性的案件，通過(guò)合意調(diào)解方式達(dá)到定爭(zhēng)止紛的糾紛解決機(jī)制。就性質(zhì)而言，先行調(diào)解屬于替代訴訟的糾紛解決機(jī)制，在程序上既獨(dú)立于訴訟程序，同時(shí)又與訴訟程序緊密相連。概言之，先行調(diào)解既不同于訴訟外的調(diào)解，也不同于訴訟中的調(diào)解。先行調(diào)解更應(yīng)該是移植于域外替代性糾紛解決機(jī)制的法院附設(shè)ADR，，它具有司法與非司法、訴訟與非訴訟調(diào)解的雙重屬性。 在《民事訴訟法》確立先行調(diào)解之后，我們?cè)偃ブ�眼于先行調(diào)解機(jī)制的司法實(shí)踐，分析立法與實(shí)踐的差距。我們可以看到，先行調(diào)解實(shí)踐運(yùn)行中已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了多種實(shí)踐模式，我們進(jìn)行類型化概括，主要分為以下三種運(yùn)作模式：法院法官自行調(diào)解、委托其他組織進(jìn)行調(diào)解、人民法院附設(shè)的人民調(diào)解工作室調(diào)解。 通過(guò)對(duì)先行調(diào)解實(shí)踐狀況的分析，我們看到了先行調(diào)解具有優(yōu)勢(shì)的一面，也看到了制度本身在設(shè)計(jì)上的一些不足以及實(shí)踐過(guò)程出現(xiàn)的紕漏。在民事訴訟法對(duì)先行調(diào)解加以確認(rèn)之后，我們需要針對(duì)先行調(diào)解的司法實(shí)踐“查漏補(bǔ)缺”，去明確先行調(diào)解發(fā)展的方向。所以，本文嘗試對(duì)先行調(diào)解的適用和運(yùn)行提出些許完善意見(jiàn)，希望有助于先行調(diào)解立法以及實(shí)踐發(fā)展的完善。首先是完善立法進(jìn)一步明確發(fā)展方向，其次是從多個(gè)方面來(lái)完善這項(xiàng)機(jī)制，包括明確先行調(diào)解啟動(dòng)程序、強(qiáng)化先行調(diào)解主體力量、完善先行調(diào)解訴調(diào)對(duì)接以及先行調(diào)解保障機(jī)制的建構(gòu)。
[Abstract]:With the sustainable development of our country's economy and society, the friction between people's interests is frequent, civil cases show new characteristics, not only in the number of explosive growth, the types of cases are becoming more and more complicated. Based on the revival of litigation mediation in our country, the trend of civil trial from the unity of investigation and trial to the separation of investigation and trial, and the influence of the ADR model attached to foreign courts, the system of mediation in advance is introduced into the mechanism of resolving disputes in civil litigation. The new civil procedure law includes the system of mediation in advance, which makes the mediation in advance be formally established as the mechanism of civil procedure and provides a new way for litigants to settle disputes. Because it is the first time, the law is not clear about the concept of mediation in advance. As a new system, we study it, we need to make it clear, combined with the relevant legal provisions, judicial interpretation and the views of relevant scholars, we define the first mediation. As far as the concept is concerned, it should be the court that litigates the civil dispute before the filing stage. In the case with the possibility of mediation, the court can reach the dispute settlement mechanism by means of consensual mediation. As far as its nature is concerned, mediation in advance belongs to the dispute settlement mechanism of alternative litigation, which is not only independent of the procedure, but also closely connected with the procedure. Generally speaking, mediation in advance is not only different from mediation outside litigation, but also different from mediation in litigation. First mediation should be transplanted to the extraterritorial alternative dispute resolution mechanism of the court attached to ADR.It has the dual attributes of judicial and non-judicial litigation and non-litigation mediation. After the establishment of the first mediation in the Civil procedure Law, we focus on the judicial practice of the first mediation mechanism and analyze the gap between the legislation and the practice. We can see that a variety of practice models have emerged in the practice of mediation in advance. We have classified them into the following three operating modes: mediation by the court judges themselves, mediation by other organizations, Mediation by the people's Mediation Studio attached to the people's Court. Through the analysis of the practice of mediation in advance, we can see the advantages of mediation in advance, as well as some deficiencies in the design of the system itself and the flaws in the process of practice. After confirming the advance mediation in the Civil procedure Law, we need to make clear the direction of the development of the first mediation according to the judicial practice of the first mediation. Therefore, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions on the application and operation of mediation in advance, hoping that it will be helpful to the improvement of legislation and practice of mediation in advance. First, to perfect the legislation to further clarify the direction of development, and secondly, to perfect the mechanism from a number of aspects, including clarifying the procedure for initiating mediation in advance, and strengthening the force of the subject of mediation in advance. To perfect the docking of the mediation and the construction of the guarantee mechanism of the advance mediation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.14

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 謝暉;;論民間法與糾紛解決[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年06期

2 張華;趙可;;人民法院訴前調(diào)解制度的初步建構(gòu) 司法ADR模式訴前調(diào)解制度合理性、可操作性探究[J];法律適用;2007年11期

3 章武生;;論我國(guó)大調(diào)解機(jī)制的構(gòu)建——兼析大調(diào)解與ADR的關(guān)系[J];法商研究;2007年06期

4 李浩;;委托調(diào)解若干問(wèn)題研究——對(duì)四個(gè)基層人民法院委托調(diào)解的初步考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

5 江偉,廖永安;簡(jiǎn)論人民調(diào)解協(xié)議的性質(zhì)與效力[J];法學(xué)雜志;2003年02期

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

7 趙鋼,王杏飛;我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度的新發(fā)展——對(duì)《關(guān)于人民法院民事調(diào)解工作若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》的初步解讀[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2005年06期

8 章武生;;司法ADR與我國(guó)法院調(diào)解制度的新發(fā)展[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2009年05期

9 江偉;王鐵玲;;論救濟(jì)權(quán)的救濟(jì)——訴權(quán)的憲法保障研究[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

10 潘劍鋒;;民訴法修訂背景下對(duì)“訴調(diào)對(duì)接”機(jī)制的思考[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年03期

本文編號(hào)：1912558