论仲裁制度的诉讼化

本文通过诉讼和仲裁程序特征的比较,认为仲裁是基于诉讼的缺陷而产生、发展的,仲裁发展的过程是一个制度化的过程,仲裁制度化的过程固然承继了诉讼中的许多有益做法,但不宜诉讼化,仲裁的诉讼化有违仲裁的精神,从而使仲裁失去自身的特点和优势。我国仲裁制度中存在着一定程度的诉讼化倾向,本文对此进行了论述并提出了相应的改进方法。     

民警在治安调解中的效力分析

治安调解作为警察行政管理中的一项重要职能,对维护社会治安、稳定公众情绪起到至关重要的作用。在市场经济体制下,我国基层公安民警愈来愈多地面临着在处理治安违法的同时需要附带解决由此产生的经济纠纷,具有化解群众矛盾、厘清经济纠纷作用的治安调解被广泛运用于治安执法过程中。然而,在立法和司法实践中,治安调解与人民调解、诉讼调解的效力并未实现有机衔接,有必要厘清应对之策。     

十八届四中全会司法改革新举措之解读

党的十八届四中全会《决定》明确了一系列司法改革新举措,对司法体制改革作出新的重大部署。最高人民法院设立巡回法庭,探索设立跨行政区划的人民法院和人民检察院,建立领导干部干预司法活动、插手具体案件处理的记录、通报和责任追究制度,从制度和体制上防范和禁止地方行政权力干涉,保障审判权、检察权依法独立行使;推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,实行审判权和执行权相分离体制,探索建立检察机关提起公益诉讼制度,实行立案登记制,从司法权运行机制和职能定位上强化司法权威,促进公正司法,保障国家和公民权益。     

论民事诉讼中的违法公民代理——《民事诉讼法》第58条的漏洞与完善

由于2012年的《民事诉讼法》限制委托代理人范围的规定,导致超出该范围的委托成为"违法公民代理"。在否定委托行为法律效力时,基于委托代理制度的功能及程序安定要求等多种因素考虑,应当肯定后续诉讼行为的效力。为防止"违法公民代理"发生,应对判断委托代理人资格至关重要的"近亲属"标准予以明确化,并通过配套机制,促使相关人员配合法院完成对委托代理人资格的审查。     

The European Union in Sudan: A Missed Opportunity?

Abstract

International organisations active in Africa are often criticised for their ineffectiveness. So too is the European Union (EU), which is also accused of failing to assume a more prominent conflict management role in war-torn countries. This article examines the EU’s capacity and readiness to take on such a role in one such country, the former Republic of Sudan, home to Africa’s longest-running civil wars and the first ‘genocide’ of the 21st century. It begins by outlining the EU’s record in Darfur and the North–South Peace Process. Drawing upon 25 interviews and Hill’s ‘capabilities–expectations model’, it then questions whether the EU’s ‘capabilities’ (resources, instruments, unity) were ‘fit for purpose’ in Sudan’s hostile target setting. It concludes by identifying settings that have been more propitious for a conflict-related management function and by suggesting that the EU should better manage expectations about future security roles.     

Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict

This article discusses an extension to the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977) designed specifically for conflict situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at play. The Thomas–Kilmann (TK) model is widely used to help participants (disputants and mediators) identify how two basic conflict characteristics interact to influence how stakeholders shape their actions with regard to their interests. Essentially the TK Model is built on the premise that the two salient conflict variables are the relative importance of the relationships at hand and the substantive issues being discussed. These variables are illustrated with a simple matrix that shows how each party will interact with the other based on the relative importance it places on these variables. Graphically illustrating where the behaviors fall on the matrix can explicate parties' behaviors to add a new perspective that may change the dynamic of the conflict. But the TK Model does not address scenarios in which individuals have very negative or destructive relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms. Hence, we developed the Baumoel–Trippe (BT) Extension to the TK Model to address the highly negative and often identity‐based conflicts that are often found in the world of family business. Accordingly, the BT Extension to the TK Model explores conflicts in which the relationships are not merely unimportant or uncooperative, but where they become negative to downright vengeful. There is so much at stake for family business stakeholders that the family relationships may become so adversarial that the very business and family harmony all parties value are at risk. With our extension of the TK Model, we seek to provide insight into how decisions might be made when stakeholders are in highly negative, conflictual relationships.     

行政诉讼司法建议制度的功能衍化

行政诉讼司法建议原本是一项裁判执行措施,但随着最高人民法院司法政策的变化,其发挥的事实功能被大大扩展。实践中,行政诉讼司法建议在规范性文件修改中发挥着功能性审查的作用。从社会变迁的视角观察不难发现,维稳压力、协调和解政策与地方发展型政府的模式变迁,诱发了对于行政诉讼司法建议的制度性需求,从而迫使司法建议成为行政诉讼工具箱中的重要工具。行政诉讼司法建议制度的功能衍化,为法社会学研究提供了一个极具价值的制度样本,亦为行政诉讼法的未来发展提供了背景材料。     

我国虚假诉讼受害人救济方式的类型化分析

虚假诉讼问题涉及第三人撤销之诉、执行异议之诉、再审制度等复杂问题。现有研究没有脱离微观的具体概念、制度规定,较少从更为宏观的视角进行探究。本文试图引入新的研究思路,从虚假诉讼受害人救济方式出发,用时间标准进行梳理,区分“法院是否赋予第三人参与诉讼机会”和“第三人是否实际参加诉讼”来进行类型化研究,探究我国民事诉讼法中对于虚假诉讼受害人的救济缺陷,寻求完善策略。     

论民事立案调解机制

立案调解制度是为构建社会主义和谐社会,探索并实施的一项重要司法制度,在我国审判制度中有着极其重要的作用。加强立案调解,促进诉讼调解与社会矛盾纠纷的大调解机制相结合,对于和谐社会建设和保持社会稳定具有非常重要的意义。和谐司法只有起点,没有终点。目前民事调解制度的运行现状并不乐观,在今后的工作中,我们要继续完善立案调解的法律法规,加强对立案调解工作的重视,建立立案调解的激励机制,并且创新立案庭机构模式,进一步深化立案调解认识,主动站位,能动调解,深入推进大调解工作,为和谐社会构建做出积极贡献。     

现代诉讼的本质:全面理性的规范沟通

纠纷的成因是交往失败,而诉讼是重新交往解决纠纷的一种方式。将诉讼置于交往视野下,诉讼的沟通性便得以显现。无论是民事、行政还是刑事诉讼,均渗透着立足言语、实现主体间沟通的理念。诉讼通过外在规范特性保证主体间的沟通顺利进行,没有建制化程序的外在保障,沟通难以成效。诉讼的内在规范性是对诉讼规范性内涵的丰富,是一种内在的交往预设程序。经过对规范价值的内在化,诉讼交往主体形成自我约束,对诉讼规则、交往预设自愿主动承受,促进共识的实现和纠纷的解决。可以说,现代诉讼克服了传统职权主义模式或者当事人主义模式的片面理性,追求客观世界、主观世界和规范世界相融通的全面理性,保障司法公正、令人信服司法,达到司法真正权威。因此,诉讼区别于其他纠纷解决机制的最大不同,在于诉讼的本质是全面理性的规范沟通。