【作者】 李德恩；

【导师】 王福华；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 在社会契约理论的视野之下,当事人仅仅向调解机构及调解员让渡了对纠纷解决程序的控制权。调解在本质上仍然属于自治的纠纷解决。调解制度追求的是权利救济、权利交易下的双赢、对未来关系的维护等多元价值的实现。调解的纠纷解决必须贯彻当事人自治的基本精神,这是调解正当化的保障。调解的当事人自治原理堪比诉讼制度的程序保障。但中国民事诉讼法的一些规定背离了调解自治解决纠纷的本质,法院调解有审判化的倾向。调解要求在自愿合法原则之下,查清案件事实、分清是非,并且可以公开进行。调解程序中的当事人自治受到威胁。法院调解审判化的做法对人民调解的立法也产生了负面影响。我们应该借鉴西方国家的立法,即确立自愿性、独立性和公正性、秘密性三大原则,以实现调解向自治解决纠纷的回归。现代调解制度的发展面临如何处理强制调解和调解自愿性原则之间差异的重大挑战。自愿性是调解正当化的基础及首要原则。调解自愿原则有程序和实体两方面的含义,即诉诸调解程序的自愿和接受调解结果的自愿。世界上很多国家在调解启动程序自愿上出现严格解释的倾向,针对某些类型案件进行强制调解的立法与实践,反映出扩大调解适用的司法政策,同时也引发了一些争议。强制调解应该受制于程序正当性和有效性的要求。中国在离婚诉讼以及简易程序的立法之中也出现了强制调解的立法,不过尚有完善的空间,其有效性也尚待实践检验。调解程序中自治与法治的兼容表现为调解的纠纷解决可以在审判阴影的覆盖之下完成。当事人自治在调解程序中最终表现为合意的形成,纯粹的合意就成为以自治为目标的调解正当化的首要原理。在当事人自主交涉的场合,力量的不均衡和信息的不对称导致交涉中恣意的蔓延,以“审判阴影”覆盖交涉过程、围绕法律判断凝炼合意以抑制合意恣意化成为必要。“审判阴影”覆盖的路径可以划分为一般路径和特别路径。然而,特别路径的“审判阴影”的过度覆盖与渗透在抑制恣意的同时又可能损害自律这一调解本质属性,反过来又成为合意同意化这种类型的“合意贫困化”生成的契机。“审判阴影”也要有所节制。调解这一难解悖论提醒我们,无论是“审判阴影”的传递亦或是“审判阴影”的抑制与自我收缩,都应该也只能将提高当事人的自治能力奉为圭臬。调解的自治并非否定调解员在纠纷解决过程中的作用。调解员可以通过对程序的合理掌控促进纠纷的自治解决。与法官和仲裁员不同,调解员并不对纠纷解决做出决定或判决,而是以中间人、咨询者、倾听者和穿梭外交者的身份提供服务。调解员扮演的多重角色要求调解员具备多样基本技能。出于提高调解质量的考量而进行的对调解员的规制可以从调解员资格、调解程序以及调解员责任等三方面着手。调解员的资格要求包括调解培训和对实体专业知识的要求,以及受教育的程度等;基于正义实现对调解程序的规制则强调某些类型的纠纷不适宜调解和调解员保护弱者、促进平等对话的职责;调解员的行为准则及法律责任则将使调解员为自身严重的渎职行为承担责任。对程序运作的结果加以利用,赋予民事调解符合基本法理的效力有利于实现调解制度解决纠纷的最终目的。民间调解协议的效力源于实体法上的私权自治,而法院调解的效力既源于私权自治,也源于程序自身的运行过程。所以,作为调解程序运行结果的调解协议、调解书至少应该具有民事合同的效力。民事诉讼法甚至规定调解书具有与判决书相同的效力。但笔者认为,法院调解具有有别于判决书的形成力、羁束力和执行力。无论是从必要性根据还是从正当性根据而言,法院调解都不必或不应拥有既判力。对调解的救济由于合意的存在无需保留常规通道——上诉,但对实体上的无效或可以撤销以及程序上的严重违法之情形仍需提供特别救济的紧急出口——应允许提起确认调解无效之诉或撤销调解之诉。更多还原

【Abstract】 On the vision of the social contract theory, the parties only transfer the controlling rights of the disputes settlement procedure to the mediators. The mediation is still a self-governance dispute settlement in essence. The mediation is a kind of activity in which the parties resolve their disputes presided over by a fair and impartial party. In China, some provisions of the Civil Procedure law show a departure from the nature of mediation, showing some characteristics of the conduct of the trial, the court mediation is carried out like the judicial procedure. The mediation in China requires identifying the facts and distinguishing right from wrong in the case under the principle of voluntariness and legality, and can be hold open to the public. The self-governance of the parties is threatened. We should learn from the leading mediation rules in the world, the three principles of voluntariness, independence or impartiality and confidentiality.Voluntariness is the basis to justify the mediation and the chief principle in the mediation. The voluntariness principle of mediation contains both procedural and substantial meanings, which are the voluntariness to adopt the mediation procedure and the voluntariness to accept the results of the mediation. Many countries in the world tend to explain the voluntariness principle strictly when starting the procedure today and the legislations and practice of compulsory mediations have turned up, which reflects the judicial policy to broaden the using of the mediations and also gives rise to some controversies at the same time. Compulsory mediation calls for the procedural justice and validity. In China, the legislation on the compulsory mediations has turned up in recent years, too, but its validity has not been proved.The agreement between the parties is the first principle to justify the mediation which aims to self-determination. To get the pure agreement faces a lot of obstacles in practice. Reaching an agreement under coercion may appear in various patterns of the mediation. On the occasion that the parties negotiate with each other autonomously, the disproportion of the strength and the asymmetry of information lead to the spread of the peremptory actions. It is necessary to cover the negotiation in the shadow of law and guide the agreement to be reached according to the law judge in order to restrain the peremptory factors. There are two routes to spread the shadow of the law, one is the general route, and the other is the special route. But the coverage of the shadow of the law through the special route may damage the self-determination of the parties, the characteristic of the mediation, and create the opportunity for another form of coercion to come out. The shadow of the law must be restrained. The paradox reminds us that both the coverage of the shadow of the law and the abstinence of the shadow of the law should aim to improve the ability of the self-determination of the parties.The mediators can promote the self-government settlement of the dispute by reasonable controlling the process. Unlike the judges and the arbitrators, the mediators do not make a decision or verdict on the dispute settlement, but rather provide services like an intermediary, consultant, listeners and a shuttle diplomacy. The mediators must have diverse basic skills because of the multiple roles played by them. The regulation of the mediators to improve the quality of the mediation can be carried out on three aspects, mediator qualifications, the mediation process and the mediator responsibility. The requirements of the mediator qualification include mediation training, the law knowledge requirements, and level of education, etc. The regulation to the proceedings based on the justice stresses some kinds of disputes are not suitable for mediation and the responsibilities of the mediators to protect the weak and to promote the equal dialogue. The code of conduct and the liability of the mediators mean that the mediators have to take their responsibility when making a serious malfeasance. Giving the effect to the civil mediation in line with the basic legal theory by making using of the results of the procedure is beneficial to the realization of the final purpose of the mediation to resolve the disputes. The effects of the court mediation stem from not only the self-governing of the private rights, but also the operation of the procedure itself. From both the necessity foundation and legitimacy foundation, the court mediation may not or should not have res judicata. The normal relief to the mediation is not necessary because of the existence of agreement between the two parties, but an emergency exit to the relief is needed on the circumstances that the agreement would be invalid or could be canceled according to the law and the mediation procedure breach of the law seriously.更多还原