论我国法院经费保障体制改革

我国法院经费改革工作已经进入试点阶段,预计在2017年开始全国性的推广。这次改革对于我国法院经费保障体制来说极为重要,能够全面解决我国法院的经费保障问题,充分发挥国家对于法院经费的调配作用,减少了地方政府对于法院的影响力,进一步提高我国的司法独立性和法院在地方政府和人民之间的公正地位,对于我国的司法建设有着重要的意义。本文主要研究本次改革后,法院经费改革对于法院经费保障体系的影响,分析法院经费体制改革后法院在经费层面进一步摆脱地方政府的影响。首先分析我国在经费改革之前的法院经费问题,然后总结该改革实施的效果,最后提出我国进一步改革的方向和策略,为我国法院建立更好的经费保障体系的作用作出一定的贡献。     

功能与结构:法院制度比较研究

法院制度的改革是我国司法改革的重要组成部分。作为一种制度安排 ,法院的组织结构应当与它所承担的社会功能相适应。在讨论法院制度改革时 ,应当对法院司法裁判的社会功能及相应的结构制度进行关联考察。现代法治国中的法院应当具有解决纠纷、配置权力和维护法律的统一三大功能 ,而各国为实现这些功能在法院结构上所做的制度性安排 ,可以为我国的法院制度改革提供借鉴。     

浅谈我国偏重法院调解的原由——从作用和立法两方面来探讨

在我国,以调节的方式解决纠纷历来在纠纷解决机制中占有重要地位,其中法院调解在各类调解中占据一席之地,法院调解是我国民事诉讼原理中的重要问题之一,也是我国民事诉讼中最具特色的一项制度。我们在承认法院调解确实在很大程度上起到了消除纷争,维护社会安定团结的作用的同时,应该看到,随着社会的发展,传统的调节方式与现代法治社会的不相适应性已逐渐突显出来,如偏重法院调解。这一问题成为我国法院调解制度存在弊端的问题之一,使得法院调解制度的改革成为我国民事审判方式改革中的热点话题。     

试论我国法院行政管理制度的改革与完善

我国法院在实践中对行政管理不够重视,存在一些问题和矛盾。借鉴美国加州法院管理的特点及其经验,对我国法院行政管理改革进行设想,促进我国法院管理模式的科学化;①加强行政管理机构设置改革;②建立以法官和审判活动为中心的司法行政管理制度;③提高行政管理人员的素质;④研究制定法院行政管理制度和规范;⑤建立快速沟通反映问题机制。     

调解的回归与重构

调解,作为一种解决民事纠纷的重要方式,随着上世纪九十年代开始的民事诉讼改革,经历了从盛到衰又再复兴的过程。传统法院调解模式的弊端已日渐显露,法院调解的去留和改革成为学界和理论界争论的焦点。本文通过对理论和现状分析,认为应保留并改革法院调解,在现代司法理念下建立符合我国现状和国情的新型法院调解。     

审判方式改革的思考

审判方式改革的思考蒋惠岭意义审判方式改革虽说只是法院工作中的改革，但它在整个司法制度改革中的意义不容忽视。它在相当程度上改变了传统的司法观念，从而在我国树立了现代司法观念。长期以来，我国的法院和其他国家机关一起行使着国家管理职能。由于人们更强调各类国...     

民事诉讼证人拒绝出庭作证的现状分析及其对策

证人拒不出庭作证，给法院审判工作带来很多困难，使得某些必须查清的事实无法查清，不利于法院在分清是非的基础上对案件做出公正判决，降低了法院的威信，同时易使群众对法院的裁判产生怀疑，不利于通过庭审进行法制宣传和教育，阻碍我国法治建设的进行。因此，针对我国民事诉讼中证人出庭作证率偏低，严重阻碍民事审判方式改革的现状，试提出改革构想。     

司法改革应当以人为本——以民事诉讼为中心而展开的论述

以当事人为本位的人本主义司法改革观,和我国长期以来法院单方主导的法院本位主义的司法改革观,存在诸多差异,前者关注于当事人的诉讼权利的行使和保障,法官的职能主要在于协助当事人实现诉讼权利和履行诉讼义务,后者则强调法官如何方便迅速的查明事实,当事人的诉讼权利在于协助法官职权行使。我国当前的司法改革具有鲜明的法院本位主义倾向,带来了一系列的负面问题。当事人本位的人本主义司法观应当成为我国司法改革的指导思想,赋予当事人对诉讼过程的参与权、对实体结果的决定权以及程序适用选择权。同时,为保障当事人的基本诉讼权利,法院应当积极行使保障性职权。     

论我国法院体制改革的路径

法院体制改革,是我国司法改革中最重要的组成部分,直接关系到能否实现司法公正和社会公平正义。在法院体制改革过程中,应当修改宪法,将法院独立审判制度宪法化;改革现行法院体制,重新划分司法管辖区域,使司法管辖区域与行政管辖区域相分离,以保证法院独立行使审判权;整合现行法院结构,将中级法院、基层法院设置为初审法院,将高级法院设置为上诉法院,最高法院作为终审法院,以区分初审和上诉审,区分事实审和法律审,实现司法公正。     

司法制度改革与法院组织法修改论丛之一司法制度改革的目标

司法制度改革与法院组织法修改论丛之一司法制度改革的目标蒋惠岭编者按：修改法院组织法是我国司法制度改革的一项重要任务，但如果没有司法体制的科学的总体设计和对具体内容的深入探讨，修改工作也难有实质性进展。为了配合法院组织法的修改，本刊特组织了一批探讨司法...     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

民事庭审程序中的若干问题研究

民事庭审是整个诉讼活动的核心,庭审制度改革是诉讼改革的契机和重要内容,其成败直接关系到司法公正与诉讼效率问题。因此对于集中审理和举证时限的关系、法庭调查和法庭辩论的分立、法庭调查的控制以及法官认证等问题从理论和实践层面进行分析,对于民事庭审程序改革具有十分重要的意义。     

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND FAMILY COURT REFORM

Creating a unified family court, or any type of family court reform, may have only a minimal impact if it simply changes the structure of how judges do business rather than addresses the structure of the child welfare system itself. The authors argue that family court reform must place social justice at its center. First, they discuss profound flaws in the child welfare system that make poor and minority families especially vulnerable to coercive state intervention. Second, they describe two approaches to child welfare cases–family systems theory and therapeutic justice–that can help to guide reform efforts directed at addressing these structural flaws. Finally, they suggest ways in which family law scholarship can assist in creating a social justice agenda for family court reform.     

人民法院司法改革的基本理论与实践进程

人民法院司法改革是社会主义法治国家建设的重要组成部分。值此纪念改革开放三十周年之际,为了深入推进人民法院司法改革,促进中国特色社会主义司法制度的科学发展,我们有必要回顾三十年来人民法院司法改革的发展历程,梳理人民法院司法改革的思想理论与实践进程,总结人民法院司法改革的基本成就、经验与教训,并在此基础上展望新时期新阶段人民法院司法改革的前景和趋势。     

LAW SCHOOLS AND FAMILY COURT REFORM

Family courts are underfunded and overwhelmed, and the quality of representation provided by counsel in family court cases is problematic. This article discusses what role law schools can play in promoting family court reform. It argues that law school involvement in family court is consistent with the law school's core missions of education, research, and public service. The article illustrates how law schools can be involved in family court reform by discussing interdisciplinary projects of the Center for Children, Families and the Law of Hofstra University and North Shore–Long Island Jewish Health Systems. Finally, the article identifies some lessons to be learned if law schools want to be involved in family court reform.     

Judicial Reform and Rationalization: The Diffusion of Court Reform Policies Among the American States

Explaining the diffusion of judicial reform policies among the American states is an elusive task. Are such policies simply part of the larger policy process revealed in the comparative state policy literature? Or b court reform a policy arena unto itself, responding to factors uniquely legal or professional in nature? Our inquiry begins with Max Weber's sociology of law from which we adopt his concept of rationalization as a schema of policy development. According to Weber, the “rationalization” of legal institutions would accompany the advancement of capitalism in modernizing nations. Thus, we might expect specific judicial reform policies expressly aimed at rationalizing the structure and process of state court systems to be closely associated with each other and with commonly accepted indicators of economic development among the states. As part of our investigation, we relate court reforms to broader policy innovations among the states, drawing on earlier “diffusion of innovations” research. Our data indicate a strong connection between judicial reform and more general patterns of innovation diffusion among the states, but provide only modest support for Weber's assertions about the rationalization of legal systems under advancing capitalism. Three of the selected reforms cluster together and are largely explainable by indicators of economic development. Two other reforms do not fit this pattern, and their “behavior” requires additional discussion and research. Thus, the diffusion of judicial reform policy is partly accounted for by factors found in explanations of general policy innovations across states, but other, as yet unidentified, factors apparently influence certain aspects of judicial reform. The connection between Max Weber's legal sociology and policy development among the American states might at first blush seem remote or tenuous. However, this article attempts to use Weber's insights into modern legal systems to (1) examine a specific area of state policy making–judicial reform–and (2) establish a connection between policy development in the court reform area and the larger literature on general policy innovation in the American states. This inquiry is inspired by the lack of theoretical integration apparent in the literature on court reform, on the one hand, and the absence of empirical analyses connecting court reform data with “diffusion of innovation” policy studies, on the other.     

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.     

现代英国家事案件审判体制的变迁及其启示

英国家事案件审判体制的变革顺应了社会发展,反映了民众呼声,从最初由宗教法院审理离婚案件发展到20世纪末建立完整的三级家事案件审判体制,即家事程序法院——治安法院中由家庭问题专家开庭审理案件;郡法院;高等法院家事法庭。英国家事案件审判体制变迁的司法理念包括建立专门的家事法庭;设立专门的保护儿童权利的机构;重视和解和调解工作。对我国未来司法体系变革的启示是：建立专门的家事合议庭;建立配套的儿童保护机构;完善家事纠纷中的法院调解。     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

Evaluation of Implementation of the Kentucky Court Rules of Procedure and Practice: An Approach to Assessing the Impact of Court Reform Efforts

This article describes a Supreme Court of Kentucky court improvement initiative designed to promote uniformity and improved court practice with an ultimate goal of the improvement of outcomes for children and families through implementation of Family Court Rules of Procedure and Practice. Twelve jurisdictions were purposely selected to exhibit a range of family and non‐family court jurisdictions, rural and middle‐sized locations. This article focuses on the results of court case file review related to indicators of due process and timeliness. Implications for court evaluation and reform activities are discussed.