【作者】 陈寒非；

【导师】 张永和；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2011， 硕士

【副题名】以成都市D县为样本的分析

【摘要】 大调解纠纷解决机制由人民调解制度发展而来,是由社会转型期多发的社会矛盾所催生的,是融合了多种社会力量的矛盾解决机制。当今大调解背景下法院的角色定位问题日渐成为大调解制度乃至中国司法不得不认真面对的问题。本文以成都市D县为样本,通过比较实证调研收集的材料,深入分析法院在大调解中的实际角色定位,并采用场景假设法来探讨法院在大调解中所应当充当的角色。首先预先假设法院在大调解纠纷解决机制中可能扮演的三种不同角色,即主导者、旁观者和参与者。在深入剖析不同角色的同时,也通过对支持不同角色的理由进行分析,得出究竟何种角色在当前中国司法体制下较为合适的结论。在对假设的分析之中,侧重对法院是否应该以参与者为角色的定位问题进行探讨。文章结构上分为三个场景。假设法院在大调解中扮演主导者角色的理由是:法院的社会控制功能,法律职业化(纠纷解决的专门化),司法的权威性,一切从司法效果出发四个方面。假设法院在大调解中扮演旁观者角色的理由是:严格的司法独立主义和确保司法公正两个方面。假设法院在大调解中扮演参与者角色的理由是:法院参与构建大调解的必要性,有限的司法独立,司法资源的有限性和参与者角色取得的实效——一个来自实证调研的理由。文章最后在总结主导者角色和旁观者角色优劣的基础上,认为大调解中法院的角色定位为“参与者”可能比较合适。这种“参与者”定位主要表现在指导服务和保障地位两个方面。而具体到指导和服务层面上来看,法院的指导和服务应当主要集中在业务方面,而不应该涉足其他。在这一过程中,法院应当切实把握好适度的原则,既不能因其指导服务而对其他类型的调解横加干涉,也不能直接越位参与,同时还要做好诉调对接工作,使其他类型的调解与法院诉讼进行衔接。在大调解社会纠纷处理机制中,法院应当始终保持一个参与者的地位。只有这样才能做到不偏不倚,有效保障社会公平正义,实现司法公正,促进社会和谐。更多还原

【Abstract】 The grand mediation mechanism develops from people’s mediation. And it is fuelled by the social contradictions, which contains a variety of social forces of resolving social conflicts. Under the background of grand mediation, the problem of role must be faced by the mediation system and Chinese judicial. The article takes D county in Chengdu city for example, through comparing the materials collected by empirical research, analyzing the actual role deeply when court operates in grand mediation, and adopting the methods of scene supposing to explore the court’role in grand mediation. Firstly, we assume that court in grand mediation may play the three different roles, which is named leader, onlooker and participant. Analyzing different roles in further, we analyze the reasons of different roles, and obtain the conclusion exactly what role in China’s current judicial system is relatively appropriate. In the analysis, we focus on discussing the assumption that whether the court should be a participant.The structure of article will be divided into three scenes. The reasons of assuming that court in grand mediation plays a leader are the court’s function of social controlling, legal profession, the final judicial authority and judicial effect. The reasons of assuming that court in grand mediation plays a onlooker are strict judicial independence and ensuring judicial impartiality. The reasons of assuming that court in grand mediation plays a participant are the necessity of court taking part in grand mediation,limited judicial independence , limited Judicial resources and the Judicial effect. Finally, the article summarizes the roles of leader and onlooker , and thinks that the role of "participant" might be more appropriate. The role of "participant" mainly displays in guiding service and security status. When it comes to the guidance and service, the court’s guidance and services should be focused on professional work, and should not be involved in the other. In this process, the court must grasp moderated principles, neither interfering the other types of mediation for the services of guidance, nor participating in directly. And the court must do the lawsuit adjustable docking work well. In the grand mediation mechanism, the court shall maintain the status of a participant. Only in this way can we achieve impartial, effective safeguard social fairness and justice, and achieve judicial justice, promote social harmony.更多还原