【作者】 黄海涛；

【导师】 宋朝武；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 法院调解是我国重要的社会纠纷解决机制,虽然灵活性是其天性,但仍需从立法的层面上,对其中主体间的交涉过程进行结构化、制度化、程序化的设计,本文写作目的正出于此。本论文可分为上下两大部分,上半部分对我国法院调解的基本原理性问题进行了探讨,下半部分运用前文原理研究的成果对我国法院调解立法的若干关键问题提出了自己的建议。本文首先运用历史学的方法,对法院调解历史发展进程进行了梳理,从历史的沿革中探寻法院调解存在的历史基础;其后,文章运用社会学的方法研究了法院调解存在的宏观基础,又运用实证的、过程分析的方法对参加法院调解活动的当事人、法官、法院进行了研究,说明法院调解不仅是法官的选择,也是当事人出自身需要出发所做的合理选择。法院调解具有政治上的功能,对我党构建和谐社会的目标具有重要意义,同时对社会纠纷的恰当解决具有特殊作用,有助于维系社会秩序和社会关系,并能促进我国的法制建设,是法制体系与社会规范之间交流的渠道。界定法院调解的概念应当反映其基本属性与特征,对法院调解本质属性的认识直接决定其程序设计与制度构建的基础和出发点。本文从我国现行法院调解法律规范出发,认为当事人对诉讼法上权利义务和实体法上权利义务的两方面的处分行为是法院调解的基本属性,法官说服教育的调解行为不属于行使(狭义)审判权的行为,认为法院调解是当事人的处分权与审判权共同作用的结果的观点并不正确,法官在调解中应当充分发挥对当事人心理的积极影响,其调解中的中介、评价、影响的功能不影响当事人的处分权,但调解中并非没有法院公权力的介入,法院行使司法权对调解进行审查确认是法院调解的必要构成要件。在论文的后半部分,笔者对法院调解立法的相关问题进行了探讨并提出自己的建议。法院调解的现行立法分布在民事诉讼法之中,这种方式在立法技术上有所欠缺,同时不能有效区别调解与审判的不同程序特点,对两者的立法与司法局产生了不利后果。法院调解应当从民事诉讼法中剥离,并与人民调解等其他调解方式共同作为统一调解法的构成部分,以促进法院调解与人民调解等调解方式的相互配合。笔者对法院调解的指导原则问题用专章进行了讨论,并认为自愿原则是法院调解的基本指导原则,合法原则是其必要限制,诚实信用原则应作为法院调解中当事人处分行为的指导,保密原则符合调解的特点并能促进调解的运用,现行法院调解立法中设定的真实原则在科学性、必要性、合理性、正当性、操作性等方面均有所欠缺,应予取消。在调解的程序设计上,从法院调解的本质属性出发,法院调解有其特殊的构成要件,由此也决定了法院调解不能适用于某些案件,包括不存在对立的当事人与纠纷的非诉案件、当事人对纠纷无处分权的案件、处分权受限制的案件,但台湾学界提出的诉讼上和解应排除形成之诉的观点不应套用于法院调解中。学界对法院调解的改革方案中多提到建立诉前调解制度,以诉讼上和解代替法院调解或在诉讼中建立独立的调解组织,改变主审法官主持调解的现行规定。笔者认为诉前调解可以对弥补人民调解、法院调解的弊端产生积极作用,应予建立,但否定当前诉中调解及主审法官主持调解的观点,在论证上稍显不足,其改革方案难以达到预期效果,并引发新的问题,故难以成立。司法审查是法院调解的构成要件,对保障自愿原则、合法原则的实现具有重要意义,审查只能由当事人合意提出申请,由法院法官进行,对调解中当事人在程序和实体上的处分进行审查,对调解协议予以确认或否认。对生效法院调解效力的设定应当体现法院调解的本质属性,反映立法者的立法目的,并与制度内其他规定相适应,如强调司法审查。因此我国的生效调解应当具有相对广泛的效力,除了执行力之外,对台湾学者在诉讼上和解的效力中提出质疑的羁束力、形式上和实质上确定力(既判力)、形成力,笔者认为在法院调解中均应予承认,但调解在查明事实方面有本质的缺陷,故不应承认其对事实的预断力。调解中难免出现非正常情况,对法官违法强制调解的行为,在调解中应赋予当事人申请回避的权利,对生效调解应允许当事人提出再审申请,并从法官道德规范、行政管理、刑事等多个领域对法官违法调解行为设定责任。法院调解存在侵害公共利益等违反法律禁止行规定的情况时,除当事人申请再审外,应当设定公权力的介入途径,由法院或检察院提起再审或再审抗诉。法院调解侵害案外人权利时,应当允许其以双方当事人为被告提出再审申请,维护自身权利。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation can be divided into two sections. The first section mainly discusses the basic theory concerning court meditation in China’s mainland. By utilizing the academic achievements in the previous section, in the second section, author puts forwards a few essential suggestions on the topic.Firstly, by using historical methodology, this treatise carefully combs through the chronicle of court meditation. Author tries to probe out the historical bases from the evolution of court meditation. Secondly, by utilizing the methodology of sociology, this thesis studies the macro foundations of court meditation. After that, by ways of positivist jurisprudence as well as process analysis, this paper also researches the parties, presiding judges, and courts who participate in that conciliation procedure. Through all these expounding, it is clearly showed that meditation by court not only is the favorable inclinations for judges, but also is a rational choice by parties which stems from their personal needs. Court meditation has political functions, which make great sense for the fulfillments of the Party’s goal: the creation of a Harmonious Society. At the same time, court meditation will play a special role for the appropriate settlement of social disputes, and eventually to stabilize the social orders and public relations. It can also promote our country’s legality development.Court meditation is a useful communicating channel between laws and social regulations.The conception of court meditation should reflect its basic qualities and characters. The understanding of court meditation’s nature directly determines its procedural designs and the creations of its systems.The procedural as well as substantive dispositions of litigators are the fundamental qualities of court meditation. The persuasive and educational deeds of judges do not possess the natures of mandatory judicial power. It is incorrect to consider that court meditation is the consequence of the joint functions by party’s dispositions and jurisdictions. The judges’ functions such as mediating, evaluating, and affecting can not hinder the fulfillment of party’s dispositions. However, there usually exists the possibility of interfering of official powers in that reconciliation process. In another word, the judicial reviews, conducted by courts, against meditation agreements are the indispensable components of that legal process.In this dissertation, author relates and analyzes the guiding principles of meditation. Free will is the basic directive principle in that process. Meanwhile,lawfulness is the former’s necessary restriction. Honesty and sincerity should acts as the guideline for the parties in this settlement procedure. Finally, the notion of maintaining secrecy tallies with meditation traits and assuredly promotes its execution. Within the scope of present stipulations concerning court meditation, the so-called principle of authentication should be annulled, because it has many deficiencies in the aspects such as scientificalness, rationality, necessity, justification, characters of operation.The current enactments on court meditation are mainly the components of civil procedure law. That kind of legislation method has some technical defects. By that way, we can not effectively draw a clear line between trial and meditation, which will eventually lead to negative legislative as well as judicial results. Court meditation should be detached from the civil procedure code. Accompanied with some familiar things such as people’s conciliations, should be jointly stipulated in a Unified Meditation Act. By that legislation, various meditations can efficiently and mutually cooperate with each other.Decided by its basic natures, court meditation has its unique composite parts, which means this dispute-settlement method can not be used for some special cases. These cases including: non-contentious cases without adversary parties, some cases precluding dispositions or at least restricting litigator’s dispositions. The following viewpoint put forward by Taiwan scholars should not be used indiscriminately in court meditation: compromise of a lawsuit should reject the action of alteration.In different reform sketches, scholars usually mentioned the ideas to establish pre-trial meditation, to replace the court meditation with compromise of an action, or create independent mediators’ organization within judicial process, to modify the current enactments which empower presiding-judge to charge the mediation activities. Author holds the point that pre-trial meditation can positively remedy the malpractices of people’s conciliation and court meditation. Pre-trial meditation should established at an early date. However, because lacking substantive expounding, the negative attitude against present court mediation and presiding-judge’s roles in that process can not be approved. That kind of improvement ideas can not attain the anticipating effects, and may result in new problems.Just as the above parts stated, judicial review is a component of court meditation, which has great influence on the ensuring free-will and lawfulness in the official conciliation. Judicial review can be invoked only by the agreement of parties. In that process, judge will inspect the parties’ procedural and substantive dispositions, and eventually affirm or deny the meditation agreement.The design of court meditation’s force should embody the basic nature of that official disputes resolution mechanism. It should also reflect the aims of legislators, such as the enhancement of judicial review. Consequently, the court meditation of our country should have broad effects. the author holds the opinion that: beside the force of execution, some other forces such as the bounding force against presiding judge, the incontestable formal force of judgment, res judicata (claim preclusion), the force of alteration, should all be recognized by the future court meditation. On the same matter, Taiwan scholars hold a doubtful view. However, for court meditation, there are some substantial defects existed in the issues of truth-finding. As a result of it, the law should not recognize the force of prejudgment for a later relevant case.It is a common thing for some abnormalities happened in the course of court meditation. As for the illegal meditation conducts of judges, parties should be entitled the right to file a challenge. As for full-force meditation agreement, the law should allow parties to rise a petition to start the civil retrial proceeding. Meanwhile, in the realms of moral rules, judicial administration, and relative criminal charges etc., the law should enact new restrictions for the judges in court meditation. When the court meditation and its results encroach on public interests or infringe other legal injunctions, beside the civil retrial invoked by parties, the law should also provide the possible tunnels for interference of public power, such as the retrial process started by courts or a civil protest raised by the procuratorate. When court meditation injures the rights or interests of outsiders’, the law should permit that person to invoke civil retrial proceedings against the original litigators. It is a useful judicial remedy for the protection of outsiders’ rights or interests.更多还原