【作者】 李琴；

【导师】 赵元信；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 法律史， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 清代处于我国封建社会的晚期，经过恢复和发展，其封建经济达到了前所未有的水平。与此同时，清代社会的各种固有矛盾也呈现出十分尖锐的、复杂的状况，封建制度的危机不断加深。清王朝的统治者为了维护其统治，采取了一系列政治的、法律的、思想文化的措施，将以皇权为中心的专制主义中央集权推向了登峰造极的地步，其中，进一步完备和加强州县以及地方各级的司法审判制度，是清政府为加强皇权而采取的一个重要的政治和法律措施。也正因为此，清代成为我国古代诉讼程序最完善最成熟的一个朝代。尽管当时清代沿袭了我国封建法律的传统——“重刑轻民”、“民刑不分”，在司法制度方面并没有刑事诉讼与民事诉讼概念的明显划分(刑事诉讼和民事诉讼在法律制度层面的区分是在1910年沈家本制定清代《刑事诉讼律草案》和《民事诉讼律草案》之后)，但是，随着民事法律关系的发展，民事诉讼首先在实践中逐渐从民事依附于刑事的状态走向“独立”。这样，清代的民事纠纷解决机制也就清晰地显现出来了。本文希望运用自己所掌握的清史资料，根据现代民事纠纷解决机制中的“诉讼内纠纷解决机制”和“诉讼外解决机制”的理论，通过对清代民事案件的界定，分析清代民事案件的特点，考证清代民事纠纷解决机制及其运作模式，具体描述清代诉讼内纠纷解决机制和诉讼外解决机制的运作规则，对清代民事纠纷解决机制作出一个较为全面的透析。首先，文章通过了对有关清史资料的考证，并根据清代刑名专家王又槐在《刑钱必览》中的论述，按照“‘重事’为刑，‘轻事’为民”和“涉及‘纲常名教’为刑，不涉及‘纲常名教’为民”两个标准，对清代民事案件进行了明确的界定。同时，从清代民事案件的性质、诉讼程序和处理手段等方面，分析了清代民事案件的特点。其次，通过对清代有关民事案件的处理规则和程序的研究和分析，并借用现代民事纠纷解决机制的有关理论，提出了清代民事纠纷解决机制的诉讼外解决机制和诉讼内纠纷解决机制两种运作模式。并在此基础上分别就诉讼外解决机制中的民间调处和诉讼中解决机制的审判和州县调处的相关规则和程序，进行了充分的论述。最后，文章对清代以“调处”为中心的民事纠纷解决机制所具有的积极意义予以充分肯定的同时，也对清代州县调处的违背当事人意愿的“强制性”提出了批判。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Qing Dynasty is in the late feudal society whose feudal economygot the level beyond its former dynasties after recovery and development.Meanwhile, various inherent conflicts of the Qing Dynasty became severelysharp and complicated and the crisis of feudal society got deeper. In orderto maintain his rule, the ruler took a series of political, legal, andideological measures to put the absolutistic centralism centered inimperial power to the peak. One of the measures was to farther improveand intensify local judicial system of cantons and counties, which wasan important political and legal measure taken by the ruler of the QingDynasty to strengthen imperial power. The Qing Dynasty, therefore, becamethe dynasty of the most perfect and mature proceeding in Chineseancientry.Civil procedure gradually became independent of criminal procedurefirst in practice with the development of civil relationship, althoughthe Qing Dynasty inherited the feudal legal tradition——haying highregard for criminal law and a low regard for civil law, not to distinguishcriminal disputes from civil dispute& and there was no distinct divisionbetween civil procedure and criminal procedure in the judicial system(Civil procedure was distinguished from criminal procedure in legalinstitution after 1910 when Shen Jiaben constituted The Act of Criminal Procedure of Qing Dynasty and The Act of Civil Procedure of Qing Dynasty).Then, the resolving system of civil disputes of the Qing Dynasty clearlyemerged.The paper tries to characterize civil cases of the Qing Dynasty,research the resolving system of civil disputes of the Oing Dynasty andits mode of operation, describe concretely the rule by whichdisputes-resolving system by litigation and disputes-resolving systemout of court operated in the Qing Dynasty and make a general analysis ofthe resolving system of civil disputes of the Qing Dynasty by analyzingthe materials of the history of the Qing Dynasty, making use of the theoryof dispute-resolving system by litigation and dispute-resolving systemout of court and classifying civil cases of the Qing Dynasty.First, according to two standards——" ’severe’ as criminal,’trivial’ as civil and ’Gangchang Jiaoming’ criminal, otherwisecivil", in the "Required Readings for Punishment Titles", writtenby Qing Dynasty renowned criminal accusation expert Wang Youhuai, andother documents on the history of Qing Dynasty, the paper makes a cleardefinition on Civil disputes of Qing Dynasty. it also analyzes thecharacteristics of civil disputes of Qing Dynasty, including its nature,proceeding, settlements etc.Second, the paper puts forward two resolving models on civil disputesin Qing Dynasty: litigation and other alternatives, by researching andanalyzing the disposal rules and procedures of Qing Dynasty civil disputes,while making references from other modern theories related. Furthermore,it thoroughly expounds the rules and procedures on trial, countintermediation and other intermediations.Finally, it makes highly prizes for the intermediation in resolvingcivil disputes of Qing Dynasty, while severely criticizes the compulsionof count intermediation, not regarding the parties’ will.更多还原