民事诉讼解纷机制中蕴含的正义

冲突的本质在于当事人利益的对抗,外化为双方意志的对抗。程序的纷争,可以通过纠纷主体选择合意或接受第三方或一方的决定方式解决。两种解纷方式契合了一定的正义理论,体现了个体私益、公共利益在诉讼程序中的运行。在具体的民事诉讼程序中,两种方式并不是完全区分开来的,在相当多的情况下,纠纷的解决需要两种方式的综合运用。     

交换的正义与分配的正义——纠纷解决途径的正当性基础解读

民事诉讼程序对于纷争利益的处理,主要是通过合意与决定这两种途径来进行的.合意实质上就是当事人出于自身利益的考虑,而与对方达成的利益交换契约,其正当性主要体现在利益交换方面,要符合交换正义的要求;而决定则是法院根据自己对于正义的理解,对争议问题作出的安排,其正当性则体现在利益的强制配置方面,应当遵循分配正义准则.在具体的案件处理中,两种正义经常交织在一起,共同构成裁判结果的正当性基础.     

Procedural Justice and the Assessment of Civil Justice in Japan

In analyzing the data from a structured interview survey with Japanese litigants of civil trials, we examined the relationships between their perceptions of outcomes and process of the trials, responses to the trials, and evaluation of the judicial system. The results showed that both favorability of trial outcomes and procedural fairness of trials increased satisfaction with the trial outcomes and evaluation of the judicial system. Satisfaction was largely determined by perceived favorability, while the evaluation of the judicial system was largely determined by perceived procedural fairness, suggesting a justice bond effect that justice fortifies people's societal commitment. Consistent with procedural justice theories, the perception of procedural fairness was increased by the sense of control and the appraisal of relational factors, though both were affected by favorability.     

德国民事司法改革的走向

前不久,北京市法官代表团赴西欧考察访问,在此期间与德国司法界同行进行了广泛的交流。德国近年来民事司法改革的诸多作法、举措和经验给笔者留下了深刻的印象,其中许多方面颇具借鉴意义。一、关于对当事人抗辩与缺席判决的司法适用在德国,民事诉讼是国家通过司法手段规范私人冲突的公共行为,其目的是维护个人权利,并对案件争议中整个私法体系的适用作出贡献。在民事诉讼一系列原则中,最重要的是当事人处分原则、当事人陈述原则和当事人有权获得正当程序原则的确立及其适用。即在民事诉讼中,当事人可以提出申请,陈述事实和提出证据;各方都应…     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

从民事审判权谈民事审判方式改革

民事审判权,是法院对民事案件进行审理并通过审理对案件作出裁判的权力.②它是国家司法权的组成部分,属于国家基本权力之一部.从形式上讲,它源于宪法和法律,是国家管理国民和治理社会的一种权力.而在现代民主国家,根据主权在民的原则,国家权力来自于民众,即任何国家权力,都来源于国民的权利.国家权力设定的目的,在于服务于国民权利,权力是保障权利实现的手段,③作为国家基本权力之一部的民事审判权当然也不例外.因此,从本质上讲,民事审判权是服务于当事人诉权的一种权力,是保障当事人的诉讼权利和实体权利得以实现的手段.     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.     

论民事和解协议的纠纷解决机制

和解协议属于典型的实体法与诉讼法交叉领域:一方面,和解协议本质上属于特殊的民事合同;另一方面,和解作为一种民事纠纷解决方式,必然要求确定其在诉讼法上的效力尤其是与诉讼的关系。就初始纠纷而言,和解协议与诉讼裁判之间相互排斥,从而实现了广义的一事不再理原则,但和解协议又非终局的纠纷解决方式,因此可能发生和解协议之诉。此外,出于效率等因素的考虑,诉讼法上又常常会对和解协议的效力作出一些特殊规定。这就要求必须从诉讼法的角度,对民事和解的纠纷解决机制进行详细阐述。     

论民事执行和解协议效力的完善

民事执行和解协议是中国特有的一种制度,有利于缓解双方的紧张关系,加快法院判决的履行,实现当事人的权利。基于对法院权威的维护、生效判决既判力的尊重以及程序保障的考虑,我国法律没有赋予民事执行和解协议以强制性效力,这不利于执行债权人权利的保护。为了更好的保护执行债权人的利益,应当根据执行和解协议内容的不同而区别对待,对于履行方式的变更以及为债权的执行提供担保的执行和解协议,可以允许执行债权人通过诉讼的方式赋予其强制执行效力。     

我国民事诉讼和解制度的反思

民事诉讼和解制度是现代市场经济条件下民事诉讼中一项重要的制度。世界各国大多对诉讼和解制度作了详尽的规定。我国民事诉讼法虽然亦有和解制度的规定,但过于简陋,因此,确有必要对民事诉讼和解的相关问题加以探讨,以期促进我国诉讼和解制度的完善。     

试论国内仲裁司法监督的范围

独立性和一裁终局性体现了仲裁制度的基本精神,仲裁裁决由于其准司法特点,也必然受制于国家司法权力的监督和制约。我国《仲裁法》所建构的对国内仲裁进行实体性和程序性全面司法监督的体制,在现实中存在监督不当的可能,更重要的是与仲裁制度本质以及与民事诉讼机制平衡关系等存在抵触。从制度构建的角度来讲,应改而确立司法对仲裁的程序性监督机制,保证司法机制和仲裁机制在民商事纠纷处理机制上的平衡关系。     

Civil Cases and Society: Process and Order in the Civil Justice System

It is not an exaggeration to say that we live in an era preoccupied with the problems and challenges of obtaining justice in civil cases. Concerns expressed about the civil justice system range from warnings that civil court dockets are clogged by disputants too litigious for their own good to complaints that the legal system is used too rarely in civil cases.
The authors approach their analysis with a sense that this subject area is in need of more and better theory. It is an unfortunate fact that discussions of civil justice—and suggestions for reform—have been marked by contradiction and confusion and have been engrossed with small matters that tend to obscure from view the system as a whole.
The first part of this essay focuses on what the civil justice system is and does. It presents a five-stage model of civil case processing and examines relationships between this model and the criminal justice system. The second part of the essay considers this model in a broader context. Here the authors examine two paradigms of civil case processing and their implications for the implementation of legal norms and the pursuit of justice in society.     

Justice as Fittingness

Law and Philosophy -     

民事纠纷及其解决机制论略

一、法律视野中的民事纠纷 “纠纷”进入法律视野，人们极其重视其“可诉性”(Justiciability)，即由诉讼或审判来解决的纠纷所须具备的条件或特性，亦即纠纷具有适于诉讼或审判解决的可能性。……     

论刑事司法权利的宪法保护

公民受刑事追究时享有一系列程序性权利 ,涉及人身自由和安全的保障 ,属于基本人权范畴。此类权利应当具有防范国家司法权力侵害的防御功能 ,因此仅仅通过刑事诉讼法予以确定和保护是不够的 ,还应当由宪法加以确定和保障。保障公民的刑事司法权利应当是尊重和保障人权的核心内容。借鉴各国宪法的规定以及有关国家宪法实践 ,我国应当完善公民刑事程序权利宪法保护。     

Inquisitorial Adjudication and Institutional Constraints in Chinese Civil Justice

Based on participatory observations of trials and extensive interviews with judges, this article examines the operation patterns of the civil justice process in China and explores the underlying reasons behind. It finds that, despite the reform efforts placing more responsibility on the litigants, the Chinese civil proceeding remains largely inquisitorial. The decline of out‐court investigation is evident, yet judges rely on a limited form of cross‐examination aimed to obtain oral testimony that can be used to justify a decision. This kind of judge‐initiated questioning becomes an inexpensive substitute for the previously labor‐intensive court investigation. The article further argues that the judges do not adjudicate based on whatever evidence presented by the litigation parties, a change mainly attributed to the institutional constraints to which the judges are subject. They respond to the incentives by handling cases efficiently with the minimum possibility of reversal and complaint. The article concludes by offering theoretical implications on the study of comparative legal process more generally.