【作者】 李权；

【导师】 李静；

【作者基本信息】 天津商业大学 ， 民商法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 法院参与调解主要发挥调解发起者、调解主持者和调解结果确认者三种功能。从调解和司法各自的性质进行考察,调解属于社会自治领域的纠纷解决方式,而司法则是对国家公权力的运用。法院在参与调解时,应当被允许为调解提供便利,却不可将司法权运用于参与调解的过程之中。法院应当发挥调解发起者功能和大部分主持者功能,而调解结果确认者功能和以调代审的主持者功能由于被混入了公权力意志,则应当被坚决避免。从调解的词源和我国调解的历史考察,我国对于调解人的权威性要求高,对调解结果的公正性也有需求,这使得我国尚不能完全放弃法院的调解主持者功能,但基于降低司法机关压力的考量,应当限制法院主持者功能的发挥。本文基于基础理论的比较研究,分析不同调解类型间的功能差异、造成差异的文化原因、我国的功能建议,这些部分组成了本文论述的主要内容。首先,从词源、历史和法理三个视角对理论基础进行论述,从而看到东西方社会对于调解问题,在概念理解、历史形成等多个方面存在的差异;其次,比较分析三种功能在不同调解类型中的存在形态;再次,对于这些功能存在差异的原因进行文化分析,包括公权力介入的历史差异、对于调解人权威性的要求存在差异、对于调解实体结果的公正程度之要求存在差异等方面,还包括从私权自治意识的差异、对公权力介入私人自治领域的警惕性存在差异,以及期待调解期待目标的差异等角度进行分析。通过分析产生这些现象的文化原因,找到法院在调解中功能的差异与东西方文化差异两者之间的联系;最后,基于制度比较和文化差异两方面的分析,提出我国法院在调解中应当具备的功能。更多还原

【Abstract】 The court’s mediation contains three functions including being an initiator, being a director and being the people of conforming results. Investigating the properties of mediation and judicial, mediation belongs to the social autonomy ways to resolve the disputes which judicial is the operation of public power. Court should be allowed to provide convenience for mediation when it participates in mediation, but do not will be applied to the judicial power in mediation process. The court shall not use public power’s function when participating in mediation. The court shall use the initiator function and director function instead of conform results functions because results confirm function is the use of public power which should be resolutely avoid. Investigating the word and history of mediation, it demands the full-authority’s mediators in China. The impartiality of mediation results also demands authority which asks us to continue court mediation function. It will take lower judicial organs’pressure to us. Based on the analysis of the basic theory, this paper analyses the functions of mediation between different types of mediation. The differences’reason and our suggestion will be discussed. First, we will discuss basic theory in three views. Word origin, historical and legal perspective of theoretical are included. Second, it will analyze three functions in different types of mediation. We will compare different types of practices in mediation; It will talk about the reason of differences between west and east else. The history of public power’s intervention, the extent of justice entity aspects, requirements of privacy autonomy consciousness and being care to public power will be discussed. Through the analysis of these phenomena, we will find out the relation of cultural reasons and the court’s functions in mediation; Base on comparison and analysis of the two aspects of the cultural differences in mediation, we will put forward the court’s best function at last.更多还原