The Negative Impact of Attorneys on Mediation Outcomes: A Myth or a Reality?

Mediators often do not welcome the presence of attorneys at the mediation table. Because of the apparent contradictions between both professions, many mediators believe that the presence of attorneys is prejudicial to the mediation process. Using empirical data collected from workplace mediation cases, we have explored the actual impact of the presence of attorneys. Our results indicate that the presence of an attorney does not significantly affect the outcome of a mediation, with two exceptions. First, the presence of attorneys in a mediation process reduces the parties' level of satisfaction with the mediator. Second, the presence of an attorney would appear to hinder the level of reconciliation possible between the parties.     

Coming to Terms with Separatist Insurgencies

Although insurgencies may begin their rebellions with expressed desires for outcomes unacceptable to opposing governments, the desired insurgent outcomes sometimes undergo modification, creating conditions that can make governments more amenable to external mediation. In certain separatist conflicts, the likelihood of external mediation increases when the political redefinition of the state insisted upon by the insurgents undergoes a revision, from secession to self‐determination, understood as a variant of autonomy. In the same vein, although it may not happen concurrently, insurgent movements become more amenable to external mediation if and when opposing governments revise the preferred conflict outcome from a military defeat of the insurgents to a containment of the movement. These two developments can serve as objective referents helping external parties to identify a ripe moment in the conflict and initiate mediation. But the implementation of an agreement ending separatist conflict may not occur if the government fails to submit the proposed territorial bounds of autonomy to prior review by constituents. Potential spoilers among government constituents should be identified and recruited to participate in the negotiations so that the likelihood of agreement rejection is reduced. In some states, however, the legal mechanisms and political opportunities for constituents to act as spoilers do not exist.     

行政协议司法审查的法律适用

在遵循依法行政原则的前提下,行政协议各方约定各自的权利义务从而实现行政目的。行政协议的主体和内容的二元性,即行政性和民事性,决定了行政协议的司法审查法律适用的复合性。行政协议的司法审查应公共利益和私人权益兼顾,并力求合法性与合约性、安定性之间适当平衡。     

Preferences and agreement in legislative parties: testing the causal chain

This research note focuses on two specific dimensions of legislative cohesion: the homogeneity of preferences within a party and party agreement. Although these two dimensions have often been considered as synonyms, it is argued that these two concepts refer to different realities. The authors therefore develop distinct measurements for these two concepts. The authors then examine their statistical relationship, putting to the test the widespread assumption that heterogeneous preferences increase the probability of disagreement. The authors do so by testing the effect of different measures of a member of parliament’s ideological distance to her/his party on her/his self-reported frequency of disagreement with her/his party. It is demonstrated that the causal chain linking both concepts is only verified in the case of a conscious ideological distance. The results have crucial theoretical and methodological implications for future research on party cohesion and party unity.     

论单方面石油活动在海洋划界中的意义

争端当事国的单方面石油活动要想成为海洋划界的考虑因素,必须通过其单方面石油活动证明存在临时协议、默认、明示或默示协议.由于临时协议仅具有历史意义,而明示协议在实践中又不可能出现,那么只能寄希望于默认和默示协议.主张默认或默示协议的当事国,负有很高的举证责任,而成功的先例更是寥寥无几.其他声索国在南沙群岛附近海域非法实施的单方面石油活动,一直为中国政府所反对,自然不能作为日后海洋划界的考虑因素.     

Rethinking Conflict: Perspectives from the Insight Approach

In this article, the authors present the “insight approach” to conflict as an analytical and methodological framework that addresses the dynamic interactions between conflicting parties. According to the insight approach, conflict is relational, dynamic, and adaptive, generated from the responsive interpretive frameworks that parties use to construct meaning. Conflict arises as a result of parties' experience of what insight theorists call “threat‐to‐cares,” which generates defend–attack patterns of interaction between them. The authors suggest that rethinking the nature of conflict so that it is seen as an interaction embedded in meaning making enables conflict interveners to help parties gain insight into, and articulate, the values that are being generated, advanced, threatened, and realigned within the complex interactions that define us as social beings. In doing so, parties develop abilities to generate new patterns and solutions that can limit and even eliminate the experiences of threat that generate conflict between them.     

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。     

“当判则判”与“调判结合”——基于实务和操作层面的分析

调解优先的司法政策并不意味着调解万能,其意义在于进一步促进调解在民事诉讼中的作用,并适应社会需求,在刑事、行政领域引进协商性因素。在民事诉讼中,调解优先符合私法自治原则,当事人处分权优先于公共利益考量,除法律明确禁止或限制的情形外,调解与协商和解是当事人的权利,也是法官的义务和责任,一般不能因公共利益而否定或限制调解。我国民事诉讼法的基本原则、制度制约、当事人处分权与法院职权的结合、相应的救济机制等,可以保证调解的正当性和效益。同时,诉讼调解必然以判决作为后盾,调判结合并非选择性安排,而是司法诉讼制度的必然。从实务角度出发,准确把握调判结合的原则和尺度、规避调解风险至关重要。从长远的发展而言,调判结合仍可进一步通过制度创新实现多元功能和价值。     

契合或分离：中国人民政治协商会议权能的政治学分析

以权利为基础实行的一系列政治行为是实现中国人民政治协商会议政治功能的手段。以中国人民政治协商会议政治功能为导向形成了＂领导、合作与协商＂的功能结构。履行政治协商、参政议政和民主监督三大职能是中国人民政治协商会议政治功能权能的评价方式。在我国政治实践中,中国人民政治协商会议政治功能权利的赋予主要来自政治层面,而作为组织体系的权利属性则相对较弱,因此,影响了其功能和职能的发挥。中国人民政治协商会议权能在理论和实践中是契合还是分离,决定了中国人民政治协商会议作为一种重要的政治制度在国家政治生活中职能作用的发挥。     

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。