我国群体诉讼的立法与司法实践

我国大多数群体纠纷被法院分案受理,既有制度本身的问题,又与司法实践中存在着影响法院积极适用代表人诉讼的诸多因素和司法政策有关。由于群体纠纷本身就需要根据案件的具体情况,采取多元化的方式处理,所以,法院通过其他一些诉讼形式解决群体纠纷是无可非议的。但是,在多元化群体纠纷解决机制中,代表人诉讼制度是必不可少的,其独特的价值和功能是不可能被现在各地法院所尝试的其他替代性诉讼方式所完全取代的。     

海峡两岸法院附设ADR机制比较——以厦门法院涉台民商事纠纷非诉解决机制设计为例

法院附设ADR有两个最主要的特征,即法院在纠纷解决的主导作用,即当事人将纠纷诉请法院解决时,法院以建议、指令的方式将其引导到ADR机构以非诉讼的方式解决,同时依当事人的申请,通过司法确认程序赋予调解协议强制执行力。法院附设ADR,不仅是一种纠纷处理的流程,也是一种松散式的组织体系。     

诉调对接的概念浅析

现阶段我国的司法实践中解决纠纷的主要方式是诉讼、调解和仲裁。每一种方式均有自己的优点,但是各自的劣势也是相当的显著。司法实践中,许多地方的法院与当地的司法系统、以及其他的事业单位、企业团体等相互合作,创造性地实践着一种诉调对接的纠纷解决方式。     

行政复议的功能定位

行政复议作为行政机关内部处理行政纠纷的机制,是一种介于纯粹的行政管理活动和法院的司法活动之间的行政裁判活动.行政复议的功能定位关系到行政机关处理行政纠纷的范围、程序和裁决方式等问题的确定.本文试从行政功能、司法功能和程序功能三个方面对行政复议进行定位.     

论民事判决证明模式的选择与重塑

在现代法治社会中，法院被认为是社会矛盾的终局裁决者，司法审判则被认为是解决社会纠纷的最终途径。这不仅是因为它具有一套权威的、严格的程序作为纠纷各方消弭矛盾的通道，而且还有司法判决作为对纠纷的处理结果及其理由的说明。故司法审判是否具有正当性，是否为当事人乃至社会公众所接受，是否真正具有其应有的功能，一方面取决于审判程序本身是否合理，另一方面也取决于司法判决是否以一种恰当而可证的方式解释冲突。 　　司法判决作为对纠纷的处理和理由的说明，是否能发挥其应有的功能，在很大程度上取决于司法判决的证明结构模式…     

论群体事件替代性解纷机制的完善

司法审判在定纷止争方面起着不可或缺的作用。然而,当诉讼被过度使用于纠纷解决时,法院将不堪重负,从而导致诉讼迟延、诉讼成本过高,以及投入的司法资源无法与诉讼量增长的速度相适应等问题的产生。这就说明解决群体性纠纷除了司法诉讼,还必须借助于人民调解、协商、信访制度、行政机关先行处理等替代性纠纷解决机制。为此,我们必须树立多元化解决纠纷的观念,充分发挥替代性机制在解决群体解纷中的功能;必须充分发挥人民调解在解决群体性纠纷中的功能,适时的启动强制性行政先行处理程序,并努力实现各种解纷机制的衔接与互补。     

完善仲裁司法监督的思考

仲裁既是一种依靠社会力量解决纠纷的方式,又是一种极重要的替代式纠纷解决方式,在现代社会中发挥着重要的作用。但由于仲裁裁决具有准司法性,这就决定了仲裁必然受制于国家司法权力的监督和制约。但在我国仲裁法所建构的司法监督体制中却存在监督不当的情形。本文旨在分析法院和仲裁机构的关系,以便充分发挥仲裁的优势。     

司法调解的法社会学分析——以实证研究为视角

司法调解作为一种常规的纠纷解决机制,影响其解决纠纷的因素是多元的。本文以实证研究为视角,对当事人的关系距离、司法环境以及法官的偏好与特质、案件的类型等社会变量进行法社会学研究。司法调解的选择与适用是有客观规律可循的,盲目地适用司法调解进行纠纷解决并不见得比适用判决方式更为有效和合理。在司法政策上,目前各地法院调解结案率的要求缺乏科学性基础。在法律技术上,我国应确立司法调解民事纠纷解决适用的法定范围并建立转介调解制度。司法理论研究和制度建设应客观评估司法调解的真实价值,科学定位其在多元化纠纷解决机制中的角色。     

我国民事诉讼调解制度研究

调解制度作为解决纠纷的一种机制，是中国固有的传统，被视为法院行使审判权的一种方式，在民事诉讼制度中占有重要位置。本文从理论上论证民事诉讼调解在纠纷解决中的司法价值功能，通过分析我国民事诉讼调解制度的现实情况，针对我国民事诉讼调解制度存在的问题，提出进一步加强和改进诉讼调解工作的意见和措施。     

加入WTO与我国司法制度改革

一、加入WTO对我国司法制度提出的要求 (一)加入WTO后,我国法院的权威地位亟待进一步提升 WTO的许多协议都对成员国的司法救济提出了明确的要求,要求纠纷应当由司法进行裁判,从而要求进一步发挥司法最终解决纠纷的职能。法院在经济社会生活中的作用越来越重要。加入WTO后,法院在处理涉     

Surrogacy litigation in China and beyond

Chinese law neither generally prohibits nor expressly permits surrogacy. As there has been a massive underground surrogacy market in the country, surrogacy lawsuits have occurred from time to time. Chinese courts are called to decide a number of disputed issues regarding validity of surrogacy contract, parenthood of the surrogate child, and sole care and control of the surrogate child. This article examines the judicial solutions to these disputes through a case study, and analyses whether Chinese courts have adopted appropriate approaches in applying the existing law to surrogacy lawsuits. The article further discusses the inadequacies of Chinese law in solving surrogacy disputes and regulating surrogacy, and recommends a set of suggestions for improvement so that Chinese law may better adapt to the social demand of surrogacy.     

试论中国社会中非常规纠纷的解决机制

Irregular disputes involving a certain community presented in the form of special maneuver and confrontation are noticeable social phenomena in China today. The issues related to irregular disputes and their settlement mechanism have transcended the professional and technical categories of regular judicial settlement, typically reflecting the profound background of political, legal and social development in China. To achieve the goal of social harmony, an extensive mobilization and utilization of political, judicial and various social resources in effectively dealing with this kind of social disputes is the key to enhancing China’s capability in controlling and resolving social disputes. Gu Peidong is a professor and doctoral supervisor, devoted to researches on the relationship of law and economy, judicial reform and judicial practice. His publications include over 20 monographs on law and economics independently or in collaboration with other authors, among which the Social Conflicts and Mechanism of Lawsuits is most popular in the Chinese academic circle, and his more than 100 thesis were released in the first-class law journals. In addition, Professor Gu was listed to the Top 10 Young Jurists in China (1995).     

农村多元化纠纷解决机制中的司法救济

现代司法作为西方法治的舶来品对中国固有的司法传统带来了一定的冲击。在依法治国的今天,现代司法与中国传统的接触更多地表现在当下的农村社会。设置在乡镇中的人民法庭代表着司法权在基层社会中的渗透,作为一种权利救济途径的司法救济将民众与人民法庭联系到一起,将传统的纠纷解决模式与现代司法联系到一起。在这个传统与现代相互交错的时代,我们应当关注于司法救济如何落实抑或人民法庭如何在基层扎根。     

司法的限度：在司法能动与司法克制之间

我国法院从司法改革初期积极扩张司法权的一端,转变到面对社会矛盾复杂性而采取自我限缩策略的另一端,暴露出司法权运作边界模糊的问题。社会需求决定了司法的供给,但司法权的能力是有限的,其机能的发挥有赖于一定的条件,而且当事人人数的多少、案件的复杂程度等都会影响司法权的能力。司法权应当恪守自己的边界。对超越自身能力的事情保持克制,是司法权威的必要保证。     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.     

Party autonomy in the choice of law under Indian and Australian private international law: some reciprocal lessons

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the performance of several contracts and is likely to increase the number of disputes before the courts. In agreements with a foreign element, the adjudication of the rights and liabilities will depend on the applicable law. Most legal systems have embraced the doctrine of party autonomy and, accordingly, permit the parties to expressly select the law to govern the disputes that arise from international contracts. India and Australia are no exception to this trend. In general, the courts in both the commonwealth countries have reported having been influenced by judicial practices of one another to develop their own law. Despite their common law roots, the interpretations attached to the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law have varied in some respects in these countries. The paper analyses the judicial trends on the subject and demonstrates the role that party autonomy will play in resolving international disputes where the performance has been affected by the eventualities such as the COVID-19 pandemic in India and Australia. The paper delves into the manner in which the courts in India and Australia may offer reciprocal lessons to each another to revolutionise to interpret the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law.     

人民法院在学位撤销案件中如何进行审查——基于司法审查强度的裁判反思

通过对1998年至2020年我国各级人民法院公开发布的学位撤销案件进行爬梳可以发现,高校撤销学位的事由主要集中在学历证明伪造和科研论文造假,兼有学术性和非学术性;法院对高校撤销学位决定的司法审查强度基于事实认定、法律适用和法律程序的不同而存在差异性的界分。为了维系学术自由与司法审查之间的平衡,并实质性地解决教育行政争议,人民法院应根据学术性事由和非学术性事由、正式程序和非正式程序的区分来建构二元化的事实认定审查标准,强化对学位撤销构成要件审查的释法说理,并审慎对待学位撤销决定的程序违法、审慎适用撤销判决,避免"程序空转"和"虚置诉讼"。     

Litigating Scientific Creationism, or "Scopes" II, III,…

This paper is concerned with the institutional role of courts in dealing with long term political conflict. Such conflict is likely to involve group mobilization on both sides; the analysis therefore utilizes a judicial interest group approach, presenting evidence from the on-going policy debate surrounding presentation of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools. The findings demonstrate the importance of courts in developing public policies, not only by articulating policy, but also by affecting subsequent moves by interest groups to promote their agendas elsewhere in the system. Many extended conflicts may not be resolved in institutional settings, but they may be repetitively reformulated and translated to engage the decisionmaking process of specific forums in on-going activities. In successive moves, each adversary attempts to shift the balance of power to its respective advantage, where, paradoxically, the parties may change sides as the debate travels full circle. The analysis also illustrates the advancement of the creation science advocates' game plan, beginning with a publicity-oriented strategy, which is a hallmark of the relatively "amateurish" litigant, and eventually moving to a result-oriented position, a more "professional" approach to the courts.     

司法解释的建构理念分析以商事司法解释为例

在当前的司法解释形成过程中,存在一些值得注意的制度建构理念与方式,如过多地基于推理启动具体的司法解释形成过程,先创设"立法政策"然后顺此制定司法解释,试图通过司法解释实现社会利益一般调整却超越其本身的权限与能力等等。这些做法影响具体司法解释的制度生长趋向与内容选择,并导致司法解释的定位逾矩与功能紊乱。为完善司法解释形成机制以确保司法解释优化质量,须强调基于审判经验启动具体的司法解释的形成过程,以顺应立法政策作为具体司法解释的政策取向原则,以实现法律的技术完善作为具体司法解释的建构重心。