理性看待法院调解的强制性因素

关于法院调解的存废抑或改革之争,集中到一点还是法院调解的自愿性和强制性问题.针对法院调解的强制性,理论界的观点几乎是一边倒地持批评态度.但是,换一个角度看问题,对于法院调解的强制性因素可能会得出完全不同的结论.通过分析法院调解的构成要素,并深入了解法院调解的强制性因素的具体内容,可以看出法院调解的强制性潜在的客观合理性,以及它和当事人诉讼权利的契合性.正因为法院调解的强制性因素的存在,才会使得这种解决纠纷的方式产生卓越的效果,这也是法院调解区别于一般调解的主要特征所在.至于那种非理性的蛮横强制的因素并不是法院调解制度的主要品格.     

社区调解中的合作主义——基于西南某市调研的分析

转型期的社区纠纷以内生型纠纷为主,外生型纠纷则与经济发达程度、城市化程度呈正比,二者均属于"可控型纠纷"。作为内生型纠纷解决机制,社区调解体现出了纠纷解决合作主义,涉及"政府/社区"与"调解者/当事人"两个维度。在未来相当长的时期内,社区调解合作主义的发展向度是:纠纷解决机制应以力量整合的面目出现,强调不同调解力量的合作;政府力量与社区调解力量合作的结果在于实现一种强制性平衡与整合性均衡,通过政府主导下的基层政府与社区力量之合作实现基层社会的有序与协调;政府力量的选择性介入须严格限制,且把握好介入的适当性,以确保社区/民众的纠纷解决自主性。     

调解的重构(下)——以法院调解的改革为重点

调解作为中国自古就存在的一种纠纷解决方式 ,甚至是社会治理的一种制度性或体制性存在 ,在现代仍然有着极为重要的意义。本文采取一种综合各种功能的多元价值论 ,主张客观地认识调解的各种功能和价值。同时 ,力图通过对于以法院调解改革为重点获取的实证资料的分析 ,提出一种有关我国调解的功能和价值的建设性的意见或理论框架 ,实现一种对于调解的重构 ,以使其获得现代转型和重生。     

调解的重构(上)——以法院调解的改革为重点

调解作为中国自古就存在的一种纠纷解决方式 ,甚至是社会治理的一种制度性或体制性存在 ,在现代仍然有着极为重要的意义。本文采取一种综合各种功能的多元价值论 ,主张客观地认识调解的各种功能和价值。同时 ,力图通过对于以法院调解改革为重点获取的实证资料的分析 ,提出一种有关我国调解的功能和价值的建设性的意见或理论框架 ,实现一种对于调解的重构 ,以使其获得现代转型和重生。     

法院调解“内卷化”与调解资源外部植入——以Q市两级法院人大代表协助诉讼调解实践为例

在纠纷解决的资源视角下,法院调解资源的投放情况攸关调解的效能。由于缺乏传统"马锡五审判方式"所隐含的"熟人权威"资源背景,法官更多通过增加调解工作频度以弥补熟人资源的缺失,造成了诉讼调解的"内卷化"。地方实践中的人大代表协助诉讼调解,在人大代表介入调解的正当性基础上,通过常识性话语资源优势和社会资本优势,为法院调解提供了"意外"资源支持的机遇结构,在一定程度上改善了调解"内卷化"问题。     

法官调解的“术”与“观”——以南村法庭为对象

调解是中国社会一种重要的纠纷解决机制。近十几年来,法院调解在中国重新得到重视,在案件解决过程中起到了重要作用。在案件调解过程中,法官经常运用预判术、隔离摸底术、“借力术”等调解技术。法官在其法律观、司法观、当事人观等观念支配下形成了独特的调解观。     

我国法院调解制度的博弈分析--再论调审分离

法院调解中双方当事人之间的讨价还价过程可以被模型化为一个不完全信息动态博弈,运用博弈理论分别考察在调审分离与调审合一两种情况下双方当事人的和解情况,可以得出调审分离更有利于提高调解的成功率的结论.此外,要提高和解的成功率,不但相关事实的查明是必要的,而且法院也不应该按同一个标准收费.     

进一步做好人民调解社区矫正工作

中央政法委书记、中央综治委主任周永康在6月中旬召开的全国社会治安综合治理工作会议上强调，要把社会建设摆到更加重要的位置，努力探索一条符合中国国情、体现时代特征、与社会主义市场经济体制相适应的社会建设和社会管理新路子。中央综治委委员、司法部部长吴爱英在会议上表示，要充分发挥司法行政职能作用，深入推进三项重点工作，     

Structured Community Activities and Moral Engagement as Deterrents to Youth Violence: a Mediation Analysis

This study assessed whether youth involvement in structured community activities (scouting, team sports, volunteer work, and church-related endeavors) and a morally engaged belief system deterred future aggressive behavior in 1170 male delinquents. It was hypothesized that moral engagement would mediate the relationship between involvement in structured community activities and aggression but involvement in structured community activities would not mediate the relationship between moral engagement and aggression. A three-wave path analysis, in which structured community activities and moral engagement were cross-lagged at Waves 0 (baseline) and 1 and correlated with aggression at Wave 2, provided support for this hypothesis. Results showed that involvement in structured community activities encouraged moral engagement, which, in turn, inhibited aggressive behavior. Consistent with previous research, a social cognitive factor (moral engagement) did a significantly better job of mediating behavior (involvement in structured community activities) than behavior did of mediating a social cognitive factor.     

“大调解”行动与“大调解”机制——以成都市大邑县为观察样本

大调解制度依托调解这种传统纠纷解决模式,以各种社会与政府资源的整合为手段,近几年来取得了较大的发展。对当今大调解工作机制的运作情况及实际效果进行实证分析研究结果表明,大调解机制在减轻法院工作压力等方面发挥了作用。但就纠纷当事人而言,较多的人倾向于法院调解,大调解机制的运行效果不够理想。改进的措施在于,充分发挥其他调解作为自发秩序的自治力量,强化其作用。     

The Lawyer's Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem, and Some Possibilities

This essay presents a moral justification for the current generally accepted amoral ethical role of the lawyer. The justification is premised primarily upon the values of individual autonomy, equality, and diversity. Based upon these values, the author argues that the amoral role is the correct moral stance for the lawyer as a professional, is a "good" role. The essay then responds to two of the most frequent criticisms of that moral stance: the first based upon economic inequality and the fact that lawyers'services must be purchased; the second based upon the absence of the "adversary system" context for most lawyer work. The author then elaborates a serious problem created by the conjunction of the amoral role and the dominant legal philosophy of American lawyers, "legal realism." If the limit on a lawyer's conduct under the traditional amoral role is the law, then the realist emphasis on the indeterminacy and manipulability of "law" leave the lawyer in a difficult moral position. Finally, a series of possibilities are presented to deal with this problem, the most promising of which is the "moral dialogue" between lawyer and client as an adjunct to the amoral role.     

The Ideologies of Mediation: The Movement's Own Story

This paper has three aims. First, it describes the ideologies of six organizations that have been and continue to be prominent in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) movement in the United States. These organizations all feature the use of mediation as a central component of their work and as a solution to larger social problems.
Second, it elaborates some points of similarity and difference in these ideologies in light of a debate that emerged in the late 1970's between "community" and "agency" models of mediation, that is, between programs that chose to closely affiliate with the formal justice system and those that chose not to. Several years after the start of this debate, we believe there are important points of convergence and divergence that have not received enough attention by those who advocate for or against alternative dispute processing.
Finally, the authors wish to use the opportunity this study provides to speculate more openly on the contemporary meaning of legal informalism and the ways in which formal and informal legal structures now seem to be linked.     

调解的比较优势与法院调解制度的改革

调解、仲裁与诉讼，是现代各国解决民事纠纷普遍采用的方式，每一种方式都有自己的鲜明特色和比较优势，正是比较优势的存在是纠纷当事人可以选择适合于自己的方式，与判决相比，调解具有自愿性，和解性，协商性，开放性，灵活性，保密性等八个方面的比较优势，我国现行调审合一的诉讼体制妨碍了法院调解发挥其比较优势，应当改革我国法院调解制度，实行诉讼内调审分离。     

人民调解与我国台湾地区乡镇市调解的比较研究

我国的人民调解制度与我国台湾地区的乡镇市调解制度同为现代国家依法建立的民间性调解制度,可纳入当代非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的范围。二者具有相同的文化传统、相似的历史背景和相近的制度、程序设计,显示出许多与西方国家调解不同的特征和理念,同时又存在意识形态、社会功能、构成和运作方式等多方面的差异。比较这两种制度,有利于相互借鉴、取长补短。同时,二者都需要适应当代社会纠纷解决和治理的需要,与时俱进地发展完善,克服自身的局限性和不足,与其他纠纷解决机制和程序形成衔接与互补,共同构成多元化纠纷解决机制。