诉讼调解的改革与完善

【作者】 贾庆霞；

【导师】 周少元；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 诉讼调解，又称法院调解，是指人民法院审理案件过程中，依据自愿合法原则，在法官主持下调和解决当事人之间纷争的手段和方法。它是我国民事诉讼中最具中国特色的一项制度，被称为“东方经验”。调解在新中国的民事诉讼制度长期受到特殊关注，有其深厚的观念根源，它与传统法律文化是一脉相承的。我国的调解历史源远流长，当之无愧地被称为中国传统法文化的重要资源。从中国古代社会起，调解就被广泛地采用。在和谐至上、贵和尚中思想的指导下，为追求无讼、息讼的政治目标和完美境界，在民商事领域，统治者通过调解的形式最大程度的实现国家公权力对个体私权利的干涉。这就是几千年来调解制度经久不衰的根源所在，也是行政、司法不分的原因之一。建国以后，随着社会形态的变化，权利意识的加强，与两大法系的沟通与交流的增多，越来越多的人对国家公权与个体私权的关系产生了全新的认识，即国家公权力的行使不是无限的，应该有一些限制，在民事领域，国家公权力过多的介入调整民事权益的做法是不对的。随着法律意识的增强，调解制度的指导方针经历了一系列可喜的发展和变化，从建国初期的“调解为主”到1982年《民事诉讼法(试行)》的“着重调解”，再到1991年《民事诉讼法》现行法院调解制度正式确立，突出强调调解的自愿性和合法性，并赋予调解与判决同等的法律效力。不难看出，立法正逐步淡化调解的公权色彩，显露出当事人自治的主旋律。但是，法律的滞后性决定了立法的脚步总是落后于实践的变化。司法实践中，调解的自愿性由于难以得到有效保障而使人们对调解本身产生了怀疑。因此，十年来，调解在民事审判中的地位发生了深刻的变化，调解结案率从雄居第一已下降到远低于判决。这一现象不能不引起学理界和实务界极大的关注与思考，并进一步对调解制度的去留展开了讨论。笔者经反复研究，将诉讼调解在司法实践中暴露出来的种种弊端归结于立法的欠缺和矛盾，从而使当事人意思自治缺乏足够的保障，容易受到外来力量的干涉，因此遭到越来越多的当事人的摒弃。通过回顾调解制度的历史，比较国内外的相关制度，考察其现状，分析其价值取向和现实意义，笔者以为在社会主义市场经济条件下，传统的调解制度并没有失去存在的意义。它既是中国几千年传统法律文化的延续，又与国际上通行的和解制度息息相融，不论从价值取向还是从现实基础看，都不失为一项具有独特功能和强大生命力的诉讼制度，具有迅速、高效解决纠纷，节约诉讼成本与审判资源等方面的优势。诉讼调解制度中存在的种种消极效应，并非诉讼调解制度内在构造上存在矛盾，而是因为欠缺规范化、制度化的程序设计，从而导致司法实践中调解过度灵活，以致于将调解的灵魂—“合意”沦为态意，反而不利于有效发挥调解的强大功能。事实上，诉讼调解制度本身包含着程序化的契机。因此，取消或替代并不必要。完善以落实基本原则为目的的具体规范，协调灵活性与严格的程序设计二者之间的关系，使诉讼调解制度走上法治化的轨道，才应是我们的必然选择。 笔者以为，从诉讼法的角度而言，我国法院调解的改革目标是，在基本保持现行法院调解格局的前提下，通过更加严密和完善的程序设计，合理调整审判权与诉权的制衡关系;取消法院调解的基本原则地位，将之确定为一项诉讼制度;确立合法、自愿的法院调解原则，使法官在诉讼调解中既能够积极发挥促进当事人合意解决纠纷的作用，又不能操纵和控制当事人的合意，有效体现当事人的自由性和处分权，从而使法院调解在民事诉讼中发挥出理想的功能和效果。为此，建议从立法上确定法院调解的适用范围，限制法院调解的不适当扩张;弱化职权主义色彩，强化当事人对诉讼的支配权，置法官于中立、公正和消极的地位;规范诉讼调解的方式;明确规定调解不公开;加强调解协议对当事人和法官的约束力;规定当事人承担拒不调解而造成的法律后果。在实际操作中，笔者主张建立以庭前调解为主，随机调解为辅，调审适度分工的诉讼调解模式。为此，建议设调解法官专事调解;以庭前调解为主，随机调解贯彻诉讼全过程;设立鼓励调解的诉讼收费制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Intermediation of lawsuit also called court intermediation means to solve the disputes between the two sides in a lawsuit under the host of judges on the basis of clients’ own will. It is one of the most important Chinese characteristic systems of civil case. Being in accordance with Chinese traditional law, intermediation has been the focus in Chinese new civil case system. The long history of intermediation tradition has become important recourses of Chinese law culture. In ancient china, intermediation widely adopted on the principle of harmony played an important role in seeking no lawsuit and realizing rulers’ intervention in private rights. That accounts for the long existence of intermediation and the confusion of justice and administration. With the founding of peoples republic of china, more and more attention has been given to the differences between public and civil rights. Public rights are not limitless that means there should not be so much intervention of public rights in civil right area. With the increase of law awareness, the institution of intermediation has experienced the following changes : from the dominating role at the beginning of the nation founding to the important role in 1982,and then to the establishment of intermediation system in 1991. In the system of intermediation, the focus is on the side of clients. But in legal practice, the willingness of intermediation can not be guaranteed that accounts for the decreasing role of intermediation. Todaymore and more scholars have paid attention to the issue of intermediation. This essay, through the way of tracing the history of intermediation, comparing relative systems believes that the system of intermediation still has its place in civil case not only because of its value but also its practical meaning. Intermediation is an effective and efficient way to solve disputes. The negative results of the system are not because of its structural contradiction but because of its non -institutional procedures leading to arbitrary that seriously affects its effectiveness. So in stead of abolishing the system, an institutional procedure of such system should be established.From the view of procedural law, the goal of intermediation reform should be as following: under the premise of keeping the intermediation role, to keep a good balance between procedural rights and judicial authority through a well designed procedure. Civil mediation should be fixed as a procedural institution. With such institution, judges can play a positive role in mediating without interfering in the free will of the clients. In order to ensure the positive role of intermediation, the scale of intermediation should be regulated and the dominating role of clients should be guaranteed. The judges’ role should be objective, just and passive. The way of intermediation also needs to be regulated, for example, to increase the binding force of the intermediation agreement, to regulate non public intermediation and the negative results for the clientrefusing to accept intermediation. In practice, the essay suggests the major mediation out court, a good balance between judgment and mediation and a paying mediation procedural system.更多还原