回归“马锡五”的思考

马锡五审判方式是特定历史时期的产物。现今,重提马锡五审判方式也有其特定的原因,本文对其原因进行较为全面的分析。笔者坚持认为,作为一种审判方式,囿于自身的特点和理念,马锡五审判方式已不具有普遍的现实意义,已经疏离了中国社会的发展趋势。重提这种方式虽然对我们建构和完善多元化、替代性纠纷解决方式具有警示性,但在中国法治建设的初级阶段,民事诉讼建构的基本方向依然应当是强调诉讼裁判的主导性、强调裁判程序的正当性,以顺应和推动中国社会的转型。     

纠纷解决与和谐社会

和谐社会并不是没有纠纷的社会,而是要从法律的角度把不和谐的纠纷控制在最小的范围内,使社会呈现出稳定而有序的状态。诉讼虽然是现代社会中纠纷解决机制中的最主要的纠纷解决方式,但其并不是唯一的纠纷解决机制。通过诉讼与人民调解等非诉讼纠纷解决机制的科学配置及时的化解社会矛盾是实现和建构和谐社会的关键所在。     

场外交易市场民事纠纷解决机制研究

场外交易市场的特殊主体、特殊交易制度、特殊融资产品和特殊监管制度导致场外交易市场纠纷呈现出了与交易所市场不同的类型和特点。现有证券市场纠纷解决诉讼机制天然不足,非诉机制严重缺失。完善场外交易市场纠纷解决应从诉与非诉两种路径展开,扩大证券民事诉讼受案范围,废除起诉条件的前置程序,完善代表人诉讼制度,实行因果关系推定和举证责任倒置,同时建立相互衔接的内、外部纠纷调解机制和完善的证券仲裁裁决机制。     

The Privatization of Public Legal Rights: How Manufacturers Construct the Meaning of Consumer Law

This article demonstrates how the content and meaning of California's consumer protection laws were shaped by automobile manufacturers, the very group these laws were designed to regulate. My analysis draws on and links two literatures that examine the relationship between law and organizations but often overlook one another: political science studies of how businesses influence public legal institutions, and neo-institutional sociology studies of how organizations shape law within their organizational field. By integrating these literatures, I develop an "institutional-political" theory that demonstrates how organizations' construction of law and compliance within an organizational field shapes the meaning of law among legislators and judges. This study examines case law and more than 35 years of California legislative history concerning its consumer warranty laws. Using institutional and political analysis, I show how auto manufacturers, who were initially subject to powerful consumer protection laws, weakened the impact of these laws by creating dispute resolution venues. The legislature and courts subsequently incorporated private dispute resolution venues into statutes and court decisions and made consumer rights and remedies largely contingent on consumers first using manufacturer-sponsored venues. Organizational venue creation resulted in public legal rights being redefined and controlled by private organizations.     

现代社会中的人民调解与诉讼

人民调解是除诉讼之外的最主要的纠纷解决方式。人民调解的存在与发展在一定程度上弥补了诉讼在某类纠纷解决上的局限性。通过人民调解与诉讼在成本、功能上的比较,可以看到人民调解不仅能够适应和生存于现代社会,而且与公力救济共同形成了相互竞争、替代补充和弥补局限的多元化纠纷解决机制。人民调解的改革和发展是构建和谐社会纠纷解决机制的不可或缺的资源。     

The importance of teaching dispute resolution in a twenty-first-century law school

Civil justice reviews over the past 20 years have encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and particularly mediation. Mediation is arguably now becoming more mainstream in terms of dispute resolution process choice. In some instances law changes have been introduced requiring parties in dispute to consider using mediation; similarly, lawyers have an ethical responsibility to provide advice to their clients about the range of dispute resolution processes available. What is lacking however is a corresponding appreciation of the changing attitudes to the teaching of dispute resolution in the majority of UK law schools, where the promotion of adversarialism within the curriculum appears to remain the focus as the primary and only method of dispute resolution. The article argues that this is unreflective of current attitudes and thinking towards dispute resolution in most common law countries, where litigation is no longer necessarily the primary dispute resolution process of choice. Whilst there was token appreciation of the importance of mediation advocacy and its inclusion recommended within the Bar Practice Training Course (BPTC), the recent Legal Education and Training Review was silent on any suggestions about the inclusion of dispute resolution based curriculum content at any stage of legal education in England and Wales. The article will explore the historical development of lawyers’ attitudes to dispute resolution within the civil justice arena and academics’ teaching of curriculum associated with it in UK law schools. The article will pose questions on why recent legal history suggests that law schools should now perhaps take a more socio-legal approach to their curriculum content and embrace the teaching of dispute resolution as a defined subject area for the twenty-first-century law school.     

行政公益诉讼诉前程序与行政争议实质化解决

行政公益诉讼所解决问题属于行政争议的范畴,其与一般的行政争议只是在争议主体、争议的问题以及争议的解决程序上有所区别,但究其本质,其是对行政权力行使进行有效监督的重要途径,在一定程度上弥补了对于行政机关不作为行为的监督不足的情况。从行政公益诉讼的“双阶构造”理论出发,针对当前实践中存在的诉前程序实施领域模糊、案件处理困境以及监督机制缺位的问题,基于检察视野,对行政公益诉讼诉前程序扩大提请主体和提请受案范围、构建诉前程序分流模式以及落实诉前程序的后续监督机制提出相关的完善建议。此外,行政权的行使有其独立性,因此通过检察权对行政权进行监督时,公益诉讼具有与其他行政诉讼不同的诉讼构造,但监督的目的在于公益的保护和实现,因此除了一般的裁判解决外,通过诉前的督促程序,促使行政主体依法履职尽责,是公益诉讼制度发挥其应有价值的实现途径之一。     

Fussing about the Forum: Categories and Definitions as Stakes in a Professional Competition

This article seeks to show the way that professional competition, including academic competition, about the definitions and categories of dispute resolution transforms the field of business disputing. It draws on extensive interviews and focuses on two case studies. The first is "international commercial arbitration," and the second is the ADR movement, especially "mediation," in the United States. In each case, the article shows that there is competition about what can legitimately be termed arbitration or mediation; that there is competition more generally for the business of business disputing; that the competition is not played on a level playing field; that competitors compete in terms of the symbolic capital that they have to offer, which is changing over time and in relation to what others possess; and that the (always provisional) results are important for transforming the "rules of the game" for governing business transactions. The internal transformations in the field of business disputing also take place in close conjunction with transformations that can be seen as outside, above all, the international restructuring of business relations in the 1970s and 1980s.     

以国际商事法庭为核心的我国“一站式”国际商事纠纷解决机制建设

我国提出建立诉讼、调解、仲裁有效衔接的多元化"一站式"国际商事纠纷解决机制。国际商事法庭作为该机制的核心不仅要扩张其管辖,还需要对调解和仲裁提供司法支持和监督,并深化国际商事专家委员会的职能。国际商事纠纷解决机制需要配套程序法的国际化,为此要引入国际化的商事调解,完善国际商事仲裁法律制度,民事诉讼法也要有所突破和创新,并在多双边层面推动国际商事调解协议和判决的跨境执行。     

行政争议的中立评估及其制度构建

行政争议的中立评估机制是指由具备专门解纷知识的中立评估员对纠纷进入行政复议、行政诉讼等渠道的审理前景进行预测的一种制度。它能在降低当事人过高的解纷期望、促成当事人之间达成和解、克服评估式调解的弊端等方面发挥积极作用,亟待引入我国行政争议解决领域之中。中立评估机制处于合意型行政争议解决机制与决定型行政争议解决机制的连接点...     

完善仲裁司法监督制度的现实价值评析——以构建多元化纠纷解决机制为视角

多元化纠纷解决机制强调各种纠纷解决方式相互促进,协调发展,而仲裁作为ADR中制度化最强的方式,它与诉讼的关系成为多元化纠纷解决机制中的一大亮点。因此,理顺仲裁与司法的关系,完善仲裁司法监督制度,对构建多元化纠纷解决机制的意义重大。     

保险纠纷样态与法价值因求：以司法归责标准为限度

保险产品的多样化与经营机制并未有机相辅,新《保险法》仍未修订的原则性条款使司法主体在保险诉讼案件中难以掌握具体法律标准,司法裁判的结果不能有效均衡保险争讼双方的权义配置,须在民商法和经济法双重法律范畴内考察保险关系,以保险立法理论和价值理念为进路确立保险纠纷解决的归责标准。     

美国阶梯式纠纷解决条款执行力问题研究

如何选择一种更快捷、更有效以及更便宜的方式来解决合同纠纷,是国际商事社会如今所面临的挑战。这并不是说要摒弃传统的诉讼和仲裁等争议解决机制,而是指需要用其他替代手段来补充这些机制。本文将以美国为例,对ADR方式作为仲裁或诉讼前置程序的阶梯式纠纷解决条款进行研究,以期提供给当事方最好的争议解决机制来满足维持其彼此间良好关系的特殊需要。     

论WTO框架下ADR争端解决机制的完善

ADR是诉讼和仲裁的辅助手段,它对一些不易及时解决以致不能达成共识的争议能迅捷经济地加以解决,这也是社会进步和法制健全的表现。随着经济社会的快速发展,民商事争议呈复杂多样化发展,诉讼不应是解决争议的唯一渠道,而应是实现公正审理的最终途径。ADR争端解决机制给我们的启示良多,特别是在我国不断建立健全市场经济体系的条件下,要求我们构建涵盖多种选择的争端解决方式,从而有利于解决经济社会纷繁复杂的民商事争议。     

论我国劳动争议处理制度的重构

劳动争议处理制度具有独特的程序价值,应当体现促进劳动关系和谐的精神,有助于释放争议劳动关系中的紧张因素,公正、及时地化解劳动争议,降低当事人耗费和社会成本,强化处理过程及结果的定纷止争功能和积极导向作用。我国现行“先裁后审模式”和学者建议的“单一机构处理模式”不足以实现上述目的,有必要重新构建,即实行“或裁或审、裁审自择、两裁终局、两审终审”的制度;设置三级两裁的劳动争议仲裁体系,落实“三方原则”,加强仲裁机构“实体化”建设;在人民法院内部设立专门的劳动法庭,并对劳动争议诉讼时效、当事人等制度进行改造。     

IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION SYSTEM FROM A MACROSCOPIC PERSPECTIVE

Formulated in the time of a planned economy, the Administrative Litigation Law is confronted with such challenges as inadequacy in providing remedy for rights, high litigation costs, and malfunction of courts. The situation calls for reform and development of the Law. An overall improvement shall be done on the Law from such aspects as providing more effective remedies for rights, reducing administrative litigation costs, strengthening the function of administrative litigation in dispute resolution, optimizing the administrative litigation effect, preventing the dereliction or abuse of administrative adjudicative power and upgrading the scientific level of the Law.     

民事诉讼调解模式研究

在民事诉讼调解社会化和构建多元化纠纷解决机制的当前语境中,从权力配置的视角对民事诉讼调解进行模式化的分析并提炼出权力独享型民事诉讼调解、权力共享型民事诉讼调解和权力分享型民事诉讼调解三个概念是对民事诉讼调解进行一般性研究的创新尝试,不仅可以为社会公众认知各式各样的民事诉讼调解提供智识上的帮助,而且可以通过对不同模式的民事诉讼调解之运作机理的概括、解释来为民事调解的现代转型提供支持。     

The structure of medical malpractice decision-making in Japan

The article summarises the problems in the medical malpractice litigation systems in the United Kingdom and Japan, demonstrating the similarities and identifying the length of time between initiating an action and its decision and other factors responsible for lengthy litigation. Based on analysis of decisions of medical malpractice cases between 1986 and 1998 in Japan, the functioning of the Japanese medical malpractice litigation system is discussed. Lengthy litigation is shown to be correlated with outcome and implies that the Japanese medical dispute resolution mechanism favours those who can endure lengthy litigation, namely the defendants, who are physicians or hospitals. In view of the similarities between the two systems, it is likely that the same bias--that the wealthier party in the litigation is more likely to win the case--also occurs in medical malpractice litigation in the United Kingdom and Australia.     

论ADR对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系的意义

非诉讼纠纷解决方式 (ADR)是美国近 30年来异军突起的诉讼外纠纷解决机制。它是各种不违背法律强制性规定的 ,由纠纷双方当事人自主选择并控制的 ,替代诉讼程序解决民事纠纷方式方法的总称。ADR具有灵活解决纠纷、合理分配司法资源、降低纠纷解决成本等功能。由于我国传统法律文化等因素和ADR具有较大的亲和性 ,引进国外ADR的先进经验对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系具有重大的现实意义     

法社会学视野下的行政纠纷解决机制

在法社会学“纠纷三阶段”理论的框架中,社会整体层次的行政纠纷解决机制包括“忍受”、“回避”、“压服”、“调解型第三者纠纷解决机制”和“审判型第三者纠纷解决机制”等类型。其中,“调解型第三者纠纷解决机制”和“审判型第三者纠纷解决机制”对于缓解因行政纠纷导致的社会压力,维护既有行政法律秩序的正统性具有重要意义。作为我国的“审判型第三者纠纷解决机制”的行政诉讼制度由于存在着吸收纠纷的范围有限、第三者中立性缺失等问题,发挥的作用十分有限,因此,有必要建立多元的行政纠纷解决机制,在我国行政领域引入ADR。