DIVORCE MEDIATION: Research and Reflections

Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) grew rapidly in the last few decades as a result of high divorce rates, frequent conflicts between parting parents, the resulting administrative burden on courts, and especially concerns about damaging effects on children and postdivorce family relationships. This article focuses on our longitudinal research involving randomized trials of mediation and adversary settlement to support the conclusions that mediation can: (1) settle a large percentage of cases otherwise headed for court; (2) possibly speed settlement, save money, and increase compliance with agreements; (3) clearly increase party satisfaction; and (4) most importantly, lead to remarkably improved relationships between nonresidential parents and children, as well as between divorced parents—even twelve years after dispute settlement. The key "active ingredients" of mediation are likely to include: (1) the call for parental cooperation over the long run of co-parenting beyond the crisis of separation, (2) the opportunity to address underlying emotional issues (albeit briefly), (3) helping parents to establish a businesslike relationship, and (4) the avoidance of divisive negotiations at a critical time for family relationships. We call for more research on mediation and other forms of ADR, as well as a renewal of the excitement and optimism of the "first generation" of mediators, qualities that are "active ingredients" in any successful social or psychological intervention.     

MEDIATING JUDICIAL POLICY

Despite the widespread use of mediation to resolve public policy disputes, there is little written on the mediation of judicial rule disputes. A successful mediation of a dispute over proposed court rules to govern mediation of certain family law cases involving domestic violence concerns is reviewed. The authors conclude that the mediation provided (a) a confidential venue for disputing judges to respectfully disagree with one another, (b) an opportunity for collaborative problem solving, (c) an opportunity to reduce conflict among judicial colleagues. (d) a format for dialogue with other stakeholders, and (e) greater degree of influence with regard to the outcome of the dispute. Specific recommendations to encourage the effective use of judicial policy mediation are offered.     

民事调解工作存在的问题及对策

民事调解制度是我国民事诉中的一项重要的基本制度,然而,由于实践中过于强调调解结案,随之带来一些问题。在民事案件的审理中,应改变当前硬性规定高额调解率的做法,从切实提高司法人员的素质和裁判质量入手,做到调、判并重,调、判结合。     

司法行为模式论——以行为理论为视角

行为模式的差异性决定行为据以发生的权力在属性上的差别,而行为模式的差异性则往往由行为对象所决定。正是司法行为对象的差异性决定了司法行为体系中存在着目的行为、戏剧行为、规范调节行为以及交往行为等不同模式及其相互之间的差异性,而这种行为模式的差异性又决定了作为司法权构成要件的司法解释权、司法审判权、司法监督权与司法调解权等四项子权力在行为模式上的差异性。     

如何提高机动车交通事故责任纠纷案件调解率

目前,机动车交通事故责任纠纷日益增多,交通事故受害人因种种原因不能得到救助。为此,笔者以辽宁省某市交通事故处理方式为研究对象,探讨了交通事故理赔过程中存在的问题及原因,并从审判的视角提出建议和对策,以期能够引起关注,对进一步搞好涉及保险公司机动车交通事故赔偿纠纷的调解工作。     

我国大调解制度的问题及对策

大调解制度的建立,有利于分流人民法院的诉讼压力,从而使法院能够集中精力处理真正需要通过诉讼方式解决的争端。同时,针对我国大调解制度存在的问题,我们应当首先对大调解进行准确定位,即将其定位于替代性纠纷解决机制的一种,并从机构组织、效力确定等方面、完善我国的大调解制度。     

试论多元化纠纷解决机制的法理特征与困境

多元化纠纷解决机制是现实社会中解决矛盾与纠纷的重要手段,承载着解决民事纠纷的重要功能。其表现在法理上的特征值得仔细研究,对其司法调解中的限度问题值得关注,尤其是当前法治中的现实困境对纠纷解决机制也产生了不可忽视的影响。     

试析民初商事公断的法律性质——基于非诉讼纠纷解决的视角

ADR概念来源于美国,原是对20世纪逐步发展起来的各种诉讼外纠纷解决方式的总称,现已引申为对世界各国普遍存在的、民事诉讼制度以外的非诉讼纠纷解决方式或机制的称谓,具有代替性、选择性的特点以及纠纷解决的基本功能。民国初期的商事公断集现代和传统于一身,兼具仲裁和调解的性质特点,任何一种单一的法律性质界定都显得单薄,不能涵盖其全部,而它的这种新旧杂糅的特点都可以纳入"非诉讼纠纷解决机制"这一"模糊"概念之中。