论环境纠纷处理与环境损害赔偿专门立法

环境纠纷的日益增多和公民环境维权意识的不断提高 ,需要制定专门的立法解决环境纠纷和维护公民的环境权利。该立法的制定不仅有利于环境法体系的完善 ,而且也可以在一定程度上弥补民法和民事诉讼法的不足。国外已经有环境纠纷处理和损害赔偿专门立法的成功经验可供借鉴。我国的环境纠纷处理和环境损害赔偿立法应当采取实体和程序一体的立法模式 ,并着重规定在环境纠纷处理和环境损害赔偿方面所涉及的一些特殊问题。     

人民调解协议司法确认若干问题评析简

随着近年来非诉讼纠纷解决机制的发展,人民调解协议司法确认制度越来越成为关注的热点.司法确认制度从产生到发展,倡导节约司法资源,发挥调解的功能与价值并力求与非诉讼争端解决机制产生的土壤相契合,逐步显现出其优势及合理性,但它在申请主体、审查标准和制度完善等方面存在的问题也不容忽视.如何使得人民调解制度能够在适宜的范围内发挥作用,实现诉讼与非诉讼争端解决机制的有效衔接,成为司法确认制度发展过程中必须思考的问题.     

略论人事争议仲裁制度的定位与价值取向

人事争议仲裁制度是近年来我国程序法律制度中新出现的一类程序制度,主要裁决事业单位与其工作人员因辞职、辞退等原因所发生的争议。该制度的运行目前仍存在许多障碍,如劳动争议仲裁程序的纠葛、人事制度中实体法缺位等等。人事争议仲裁制度的缺陷并不等于该制度没有相应的程序价值。该制度应定位于裁决公务人员,包括国家机关工作人员和改革后事业单位中工作人员与其单位之间的争议,并通过人事争议仲裁制度的实施,推动我国事业单位改革及其法制化进程。     

论医疗纠纷ADR机制之构建

文章参照美、德、日三个发达国家的非诉讼解决纠纷制度,采用比较的方法,在借鉴其他国家经验的基础上,剖析了我国医疗纠纷非诉讼解决机制存在的问题。对完善医疗纠纷协商机制、引入第三方介入医疗纠纷的调解机制及加快我国医事立法方面提出了建议,以此构建和谐医患关系。     

论上诉考核的替代性机制

司法审查形式化的固有缺陷、便宜结案的办案模式及审级制度内在的行政化元素,为当事人通过上诉解决纠纷提供了心理暗示和路径依赖。而上诉考核机制的矫正功能和激励效用极为有限,不能从根本上解决这一问题。对此,可考虑引入上诉考核的替代性机制:一方面,构建相应的基础性保障机制,扩展司法实质性解决纠纷的范围和能力;另一方面,对审级进行功能划分,升格上诉程序品质以及建立诉讼成本分担机制,应更有利于实现纠纷解决的目标。     

浅议“继续中止减让案”中的报复措施终止问题

授权报复,是WTO争端解决机制中最有威慑力的执行手段。但对于如何终止报复措施,DSU并未明确规定。在2008年10月审结的"美国——在欧盟荷尔蒙争端中继续中止减让"案中,上诉机构作出了比较明确的回答。从基本案情入手,讨论本案暴露出的问题,并通过解读上诉机构报告予以回答和解释,可为我国致力于DSU的修改工作提供借鉴。     

彝族民间调解与国家法律制度的良性互动

彝族人民在几千年历史中,形成了以民间德古调解为主的多元化传统纠纷解决机制。拟在彝族民间调解制度的运行情况的现状分析基础上,提出彝族民间调解与国家法律制度的良性互动,整合民间纠纷调解的资源,推行多元化调解机制,构建大调解格局。     

Duel or Dual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Parenting Coordination for Uber‐Conflicted Parenting Relationships

Parenting coordination for families struggling with severe conflict can be challenging for both the family and the parenting coordinator (PC). These families can put an inordinate strain on the PC as they lobby their positions and try to bias the PC against the other parent. The interdisciplinary dual‐PC model is an innovative approach using aspects of the collaborative practice model to enhance the efficacy of the process while utilizing the strengths of both disciplines. Through a case illustration, the identification of the family dynamics and situations that give rise to use of this approach shall become clear. This article also demonstrates the potential benefits to both the family and the PCs. All aspects synthesize into a cohesive, well‐balanced approach to the uber‐conflicted parenting relationships.     

Evaluation of the University of Denver's Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: The First Out‐of‐Court Divorce Option1

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is the first U.S. alternative dispute resolution model to provide legal dispute resolution, therapeutic, educational, and financial services to separating and divorcing families in a single location outside the courthouse. Data were collected on 82 families at entry and service completion: service utilization, process timeliness, family satisfaction, and outcomes. Parents were highly satisfied with the process and demonstrated significant improvements in personal well‐being, co‐parenting, parenting quality, and reported reductions in children's anxiety/depression. Community partners felt RCSDF was a positive innovation in their community. The RCSDF model represents a culture shift from an adversarial process to a cohesive alternative that supports the well‐being of all family members.