刘村的纠纷与解决——权威衰落之后的选择

刘村的纠纷大致可以分为村际纠纷、家庭外部纠纷、家庭内部纠纷。在实践中,村际纠纷、家庭外部纠纷更多的是通过司法调解、诉讼等公力救济的方式得到解决,家庭内部纠纷则更多是通过“外戚”界入来解决。刘村内部发生的家庭外部纠纷更多通过公力救济的方式解决与刘村缺乏必要的纠纷解决资源—权威之间有着密切的关系。     

IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN

In the traditional family law and child protection litigation where the court is asked to make determinations based on the best interests of a minor, the adversarial, rights-based model often fails to serve the interests of children and families and may be more harmful than beneficial to children relative to other possible methods of dispute resolution. This article examines the shortcomings of such an adversarial, rights-based model; briefly highlights the literature on dispute resolution systems design; and then proposes a new approach to better serve the interests of children in family law and child protection cases.     

乡村自治：解决“三农”问题的重要路径

“三农”问题实质上是一个政治问题。是因农民的意志上升不到统治意志,平等权、自由权及社会经济权利得不到切实的保障。发展乡村自治能够实现农民的“自我管理权”,扩大农民的权力。因而是解决三农问题的重要路径。乡村自治的理论和实践及乡村治理的现状都证明了在这一点。     

What Dispute Systems Design Can Learn from Project Management

The discipline of project management (PM), a well‐recognized management approach to large‐scale, high‐cost projects, has much to offer the field of dispute systems design (DSD). This article explores the core concepts of each discipline, noting similarities and differences, with a particular focus on stakeholder management, scope management, risk management, and quality management. Two case studies, General Electric's early dispute resolution program and Chevron's corporate social responsibility initiative in the Niger Delta, demonstrate the application of project management priciples in two DSD scenarios: one with internal corporate stakeholders and one with external community stakeholders. The authors identify five key lessons that dispute systems design can draw from project management and identify areas for further study.     

MAKING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) LESS ALTERNATIVE: THE NEED FOR ADR AS BOTH A MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENT AND A BAR EXAM TOPIC

Divorce proceedings have had a negative reputation due to their adversarial nature. Litigation in the family law field has exacerbated an already emotionally charged atmosphere. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has grown in importance over the past three decades and has helped to alleviate some of the animosity which accompanies divorce and child custody matters. Parents in particular are aided by the benefits of options such as mediation and collaborative divorce, obtaining increased control over their agreements in situations where the relationships will be continuous due to shared parenting responsibilities. However, much more could be done to increase the use of ADR in family law proceedings. Current family law practitioners could fill many roles, including mediator, advocate during mediation, collaborative negotiator, arbitrator, and counselor regarding which process to implement. Knowledge about these different roles, with their attendant skills and ethical issues, has become imperative. This Note will advocate for a mandatory continuing legal education requirement in ADR for matrimonial attorneys, as well as for the inclusion of ADR as a topic on state bar examinations. An increased knowledge of ADR will benefit divorcing parents and their children, ease an overcrowded court system, and lead to greater personal and professional satisfaction for the family law practitioner.     

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS: APPLICATIONS TO CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME CASES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA

A program to apply Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), a confidential, settlement‐oriented and accelerated alternative dispute resolution technique, to child custody and parenting time cases has been cooperatively developed by Hennepin county Family Court Services and the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Family Court. Parties are referred by the court to a male/female team of experienced neutral evaluators for early feedback on the probable outcome of a full evaluation and an opportunity to negotiate a settlement. It has proven to be a highly successful program in its first 2 years, with the majority of cases reaching an early settlement. The ENE program reduces the stress and expense of custody disputes for clients, expedites judicial case management, maximizes Family Court Services staff efficiency, and focuses subsequent evaluations on critical issues.     

技术侦查所获材料的证据能力考察

技术侦查虽然在实践中大量存在，但中国现行法律无力制约技术侦查，其合法性一直颇受争议。因此，通过这些手段获得的材料是否具有证据能力就成为当前司法实践中一个退退两难的问题。追严重妨碍了法院查明案件事实真相、制约了办案效率、影响当事人正当权益的实现。只有通过刑事诉讼立法明确技术侦查的合法性，进而解决其所获材料的证据能力问题，才是摆脱实践困难的最佳途径。     

论我国古代调处制度与和谐社会的构建

调处制度是我国古代实现“无讼”法律文化的一种司法制度，在处理社会纠纷的实践中发挥着重要作用。适应建设和谐社会的需要，对调处制度在借鉴的同时予以革新和改造，完善我国现有的调解制度，使它既能适应现实解纷止争的需要，又不违背依法治国的方向，将构建和谐社会与依法治国完美地结合起来。     

IS THE TURN TOWARD COLLABORATIVE LAW A TURN AWAY FROM JUSTICE?

The new trend in Collaborative Family Law (CFL) in the United States and Canada raises new questions about theories of justice. CFL achieves many of the goals of a viable theory of justice and its implicit critique of the legal system is a valid one. However, it unnecessarily demonizes law and has yet to explicitly articulate where it fits in terms of its own theory of justice. After considering the claims made by CFL, it is apparent that while some are productive, others are problematic and should be discarded. Specifically, CFL's rejection of factual determinacy may be inappropriate in some cases. The CFL approach has the potential to ignore problems of power imbalance, and may sacrifice just outcomes for the sake of efficiency. The emphasis on relationships and the need for their protection is not always an appropriate approach, and in demonizing law in favor of private ordering, CFL unnecessarily rejects the importance of law as a site for public participation in the creation and defense of norms. CFL is an important step forward in law reform, but if it is to fulfill its potential, it needs to incorporate within its practice a theory of justice that avoids the pitfalls of liberal individualism and allows for the public authorship of norms.