我国法院调解制度之检讨与重塑

【作者】 彭晓冬；

【导师】 靳建丽；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 纠纷是人类社会的常态。对社会而言，重要的是如何建立一套行之有效的纠纷解决机制。 目前我国现行法院调解制度中存在着的重大缺陷是缺少审前调解程序。由于立法设计上的这一先天不足，许多法院已经无法承担案件之重。就诉讼价值取向上的整体而言，若漠视这一缺陷，审判制度改革的后果只能是扬汤止沸。 本文写作的动机是怎样才能使法院摆脱“收案多、判决多、上诉多、发还多、执行难、社会公信力差”的困境，走上“调解多、判决少、质量高、上诉少、申诉少、节约审判资源和社会资源、缓解执行压力”的良性循环之路!探讨审前调解制度的建立和完善能否成为法院诸多难题中的一个“过滤措施”，在功能上起到釜底抽薪之效果? 本文从调解的概念、性质开始，简要概述了法院调解的概念、特征，针对审判程序“瞻前而不顾后的特征”以及判决的成本高、“案了事未了”的局限性，重点挖掘法院调解的优势及程序价值。创新之处是法院调解的程序价值。即：1、前瞻性价值。2、高度自治(或称自由用尽)价值。3、效益为先价值。(1)缩短诉讼周期。(2)简化诉讼程序。4、寻求实质正义价值。5、回避困难的事实和法律判断价值。6、安定价值。 第二部分通过考察其它国家和地区的法院调解及相关制度，可以看出象我国目前这样的完全与审判过程融为一体的法院调解在其他国家和地区很难找到。对比国内外调解制度，除共同点外，重点是探寻这些国家和地区的诉讼和解与我国法院调解的区别。即：1、两者在民事诉讼中地位不同。法院调解始终是我国一项最具特色的基本原则和制度，其诉讼、审判方式基本上仍处于一种可称之为“调解型审判”的传统模式之中。而国外的诉讼和解不具有这样的地位。2、具体的差异主要是法官与调解人员身份是否重叠的区别。3、我国缺少审前调解程序。这一结构性缺陷是现存诸多难题中的“万恶之源”。我们己经为此负出并正在负出沉重的代价!审前调解制度的确立，已经迫在眉捷。 第三部分通过调解制度的历史回顾及我国法院调解的成因考察，从“调处息讼”的传统的理念分析入手，充分肯定了儒家思想对调解产生的巨大影响。“调处息讼”既是中国古代调解所追求的理念，又是官方正统的纠纷解决方式。“无讼”、“厌讼”、“贱讼”、“耻讼”的观念，既是官方的价值取向，又在普通百姓中根深蒂固。 法院调解的现状之检讨，重点是挖掘现行法院调解制度的弊端、缺陷及其根源，也是本文创新之处。 最大的弊端莫过于法官的强制调解。其根源是法官的中立立场出了问题。原因有两个:一是对法官角色定位错误。中国已拥有一支世界上最庞杂的法官队伍。最后的决定并非由最优秀的人员做出。二是法官、法院不独立。“对某人的生活控制权，等于对其意志有控制权。” 之所以称之为缺陷，是因为民事诉讼法审前准备阶段，没有调解方面的规定，导致了我国法院的“漂流审”。究其原因，理论上没有认识到准备程序本身所具有的根基性的独立价值和诸多功能。以至于审前准备程序的设计极为粗陋，几近缺乏;审判实践中法官的具体操作更是形同虚设，走过场而已。 最后，在审前调解制度设计的相关理论思考及框架构造中，提出重塑方案。关于诉讼的目的，笔者赞同多元说。而审前调解制度的确立可以实现多元论目的，为纠纷解决提供更多的选择机会。关于我国民事诉讼模式的定位。审判实务中已形成“以当事人主义为主，职权主义为辅”的诉讼模式，笔者称其为“过渡型模式。”关于法院调解基本模式的选择。首先应考虑两个因素:一是对程序公正的追求。一个重要的标志是看其能否满足当事人的需要，尊重当事人的人格。二是现实可能性。即必须考虑文化差异，法律制度的移植，必须考虑是否会出现医学上异体移植排斥反应。受程序安定价值的制约，对诉讼模式不应大动干戈。应优先追求正式法律体系的建立以及诉讼程序的正当化。故应在保留“调审结合模式”的前提下，增设审前调解制度，为当事人提供以合意解决纠纷的广泛机会，实现诉讼效率的最大化。 关于法院调解的基本原则。1、“事实清楚，是非分明”原则应该舍弃。因为调解程序根本不具备这种功能。2、调解形式不宜公开进行。主要是基于尊重当事人的稳私权，商业秘密以及调解结果可能导致的连锁反应而殃及其他利益，使当事人消除“顾此失彼”之顾虑。3、调解书送达前不允许当事人反悔。若保留反悔权，貌似赋予当事人更多的诉讼权利，实则是对当事人处分权的“放纵”。亦有悖于效率原则，浪费诉讼资源。4、应扩大法院调解的范围。最大限度地开发和利用调解程序(尤其是审前调解)的优势。 在审前调解设计方面。就机构设置、调解法官的定位、要求，审前调解的程序及期限，调解的具体方式，调解协议的法律约束力，诉讼费减量收取办法等提出了框架。更多还原

【Abstract】 Disputes exist where any society goes. As far as a society is concerned, what really counts is how to establish an effective dispute-settlement system.Now where China conciliation system of People’s courts flaws is it is legislatively born deficient in a preceding procedure, which I term it the "procedure of fore-court conciliation". Suffering from such a deficiency, People’s courts are burdened with overloaded cases. When it comes to balancing the value of litigation, it could be only of a window show if judicial reform turns to ignore this deficiency.Facing with the tough circumstances of litigation-explosion, People’s courts are tired out with years-filed cases, with yearly rounds of re-judgments, appeals, retrials and it is for a way out of those difficulties that this article aims to contribute to my reflection on an effective judicial reform with a fore-court conciliation procedure established as a litigation filter.Part I begins court conciliation with introductory remarks on its concept, nature and characteristic of litigation limits, such as non-ending and high price. What the conciliation advantages that courts have, is its procedure value, namely, the value in saving potential litigations, high degree of autonomy of parties and quick litigation efficiency, in terms of shortened litigation period, simplified procedure, higher degree of substantial justice, social stability and over-leaped debates on entangled facts and rules.Part II: Comparing with foreign courts conciliation system, it can be firstly found out that our conventional court procedure of conciliation differs, in judicial position, with those of foreign countries as one model of "conciliation-style trail", although hardly found the same in foreign countries or regions. The difference lies where different system designs. Secondly, China judges mediate disputes both as procedure judges and conciliators. Thirdly, China People’s courts come up with problems mentioned above due to the very defect in procedure of fore-court conciliation.Part III: Historically influenced by Confucius culture, it is of Chinese opinion, either in official or common level, to calm down disputes rather than file a humble lawsuit or answer a humble lawsuit.Pondering on court conciliation, this article examines in detail disadvantages or defects that People’s courts have. The defect or malpractice of China court conciliation are that judges tend to conduct mandatory conciliation when they face to lose the powerIVof decision-making under external influence or interference, which can be basically concluded as non-independence of judges and non-independence of courts.Accordingly, basing no rules about fore-court conciliation in CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, the hard truth of People’s court is the practice of "floating trial", which means a trial without needed preparation for court function. As far as the purpose of litigation is concerned, I agree with the theory of multi-value, for it provides parties with more chances to communicate and understand, to compromise and balance mutual interest.As People’s courts practice a litigation model of more litigant-centered and less court-centered, which can be termed as transitional model, the conciliation model that courts choose to conduct involves two considerations, that is, justice and feasibility, with justice realized by meeting both parties’ multi-value and feasibility realized by harmonizing cultural difference. Even for the litigant-centered model, it is rational to combine conciliation procedure with trail procedure because fore-court conciliation does provide litigants with more chances to maximize compatible interest.As for the basic principle of court conciliation, it should be adjusted to practical circumstance, for there may be cases that in trial of civil cases, people’s court shall not "distinguish between right and wrong on the basis of the facts being clear" when parties choose to ignore right-or-wrong judicial value, and that in respect to personal privacy or trade sec更多还原