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。     

大调解运行机制研究——以安徽的实践为视点

建立和完善大调解机制是创新社会管理的重点内容。安徽省已初步建成体系科学合理、运转富有成效的大调解机制,文章从安徽省的实践和取得的经验出发,进一步思考其内在机理,大调解机制应当具备国家动员性、多元复合性、协调整合性、开放包容性等基本特征。大调解机制应以有利于当事人合意的形成与自由意志的维护、有利于矛盾纠纷的有效化解与社会秩序的和谐稳定、有利于各种调解资源的整合与良性互动、有利于法治精神与和合精神的共存互补、有利于社会自我解纷能力的提升与市民社会的发育作为价值目标。大调解机制需要在规范化、配套机制、评价标准、律师调解、调解队伍建设等层面进一步加以完善。     

和谐语境下行政案件司法权运行探究——以司法权运行场域为视角

于司法权运行场域之视角,行政案件协调和解是一种"会场司法"模式;"从‘剧场’到‘会场’"象征着我国行政案件司法权在两种不同空间场域先后运行之时空路径和"仪式与非仪式结合运行"之理想类型,反映着转型时期中国社会的权力与权利关系结构。"会场式司法"是自治本位和纠纷解决型而非传统的政府本位和科层型司法,展现着民主、合意、开放、和谐的司法权形象,是对基于传统行政诉讼理论所建构的"剧场式司法"程序及其价值的解构,但其制度性弊端和运作不当之风险决定应按正当程序标准进行重构:在价值构造上实现程序之内在价值、直接外在价值及衍生价值的统一;在规范形态上具备形式法治之外观与实质法治之内涵。     

Triangulation of Salient Studies to Date on Trust-Building in Mediation

Many studies have empirically demonstrated the importance of trust-building between mediators and parties to a dispute. We wrote this article in response to a call by Stephen Goldberg and Margaret Shaw for studies conducted in North America to be triangulated in other countries where mediation is taking off as an alternative tool in the resolution of disputes. Our objective was to test theories on the factors that increase trust-building in mediation. With this in mind, the study conducted by Jean Poitras in Montreal (Canada) was triangulated in the Balearic Islands (Spain) and an analysis was made of the similarities and differences between both studies using different methods.     

Parenting Coordination: The Risks of a Hybrid Conflict Resolution Process

Parenting coordination is a conflict resolution process that blends the roles of mediator, decision maker, monitor, assessor, educator, counselor, and enforcer for families involved in high‐conflict divorces. This article explores the potential benefits and risks of blending roles in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, trust, posturing, dual roles, self‐determination, and allegations of bias.     

Mediation and the Art of Shuttle Diplomacy

Mediation caucusing — that is, separate meetings conducted by the mediator with some, but not all, of the parties — is widely used, but it has become increasingly controversial, as some mediators advocate for a no‐caucus form of mediation using only joint sessions with all parties present. The rationale for the no‐caucus model is that caucuses give the mediator too much power at the expense of the parties, and joint sessions improve the parties' understanding of each other's views. But caucusing adds value to mediation in several ways. First, from the standpoint of economic theory, caucusing provides mediators with an important tool for overcoming two impediments to settlement — the “prisoner's dilemma” (caused by the parties' fear of mutual exploitation) and “adverse selection” (caused by the failure to disclose information). Second, caucusing can help the mediator overcome a variety of negotiation problems, such as communication barriers, unrealistic expectations, emotional barriers, intraparty conflict, and fear of losing face. Third, caucusing provides a more private setting in which the mediator can develop a deeper and more personal understanding of the parties' needs and interests. Although the no‐caucus model may be appropriate for certain types of mediation (particularly those cases in which the parties will have an ongoing relationship), some parties may prefer the efficiency that can be achieved with caucusing, even if that means sacrificing certain other values — such as greater understanding — or giving the mediator more information than the parties have, thus creating the risk of manipulation by the mediator. Moreover, the choice is not binary — numerous variations and hybrid formats can be useful, such as sessions in which the mediator meets with only the parties' lawyers or with only the parties. Choosing the best format for a mediation is more of an art than a science, and mediators should consider, with the parties, whether the parties' objectives would be best served using only joint sessions, extensive caucusing, or a combination of these approaches.     

法院“调解运动”之反思——基于两种文明秩序的视角

当下,调解在我国法院大行其道,甚至某些地方大搞调解运动。本文基于文明秩序的视角,对调解制度的产生根源和效用以及当今社会调解运作的方式进行反思。在道德文明秩序中,以调解为核心的社会纠纷解决机制,有其普遍性适用的文化肌理。在法律文明秩序下,规则中心主义的制度安排压缩了调解机制的存在空间,调解的有效性也受到诸多条件的制约。法院调解的运动化会导致消极强制的效果,削弱民众对法律的信仰。     

民事审前调解程序的构建

法院调解历来是解决民事纠纷的重要途径,针对我国传统法院调解中＂调审合一＂、＂调解与审判功能混淆＂的弊端,民事审判制度的改革提出了＂调审分离＂的改革方案。审前调解就是实现调解程序和审判程序分离,是在立案后开庭审理之前,由法院专门调解人员主持下进行的调解。审前调解程序具有当事人处分权优先性、独立性、契约性、职业化和专业化的特征,具有不同于审判程序的调解原则和程序设置。     

刑事附带民事诉讼案件调解方法的思考

在审理刑事附带民事诉讼案件时,坚持在严惩罪犯的同时,充分利用法律赋予的调解职能,围绕刑事诉讼这一主线,克服就案办案思想,积极调解,使刑事责任和民事责任相容相济,通过调解使二者在法律与情理上得到互补,从而达到被告人服判、被害人息诉的良好效果。从近年来的司法实践看,初犯、过失犯、未成年犯等刑事案件和邻里纠纷引发的刑事案件也不在少数,通常像这类犯罪,被告人和被害人没有太深的过节,被告人愿意通过赔偿希望得到从宽处理,而被害人也愿意得到经济上的赔偿,谅解     

刑事附带民事诉讼高调解率的实证研究——基于“赔偿从宽”角度的分析

刑事附带民事诉讼调解能有效地减少矛盾对抗,缓解情绪对立,平衡利益关系,促进社会和谐,是人民法院在刑事司法领域的重要司法举措,也因此有着较高的调解率。对两种案件类型的实证分析表明,"赔偿从宽"在实践中大力促成了刑事附带民事诉讼调解,成为影响高调解率的一个重要因素。