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。     

Study of the correlation between psychiatric and psychological diagnoses in sample offenders

This study deals with the frequency with which expert psychiatrists and psychologists make structural or nosographic diagnoses within the context of expert assessment.Thus, the rates of concordance between psychiatrists and psychologists in both types of diagnoses will be assessed.To do so, the level of inter-observer agreement on diagnoses between 1990 and 2003 was studied retrospectively in France through psychiatric and psychological assessments of 505 male offenders. The assessment of the correlation rates was carried out using the Kappa coefficient.The results show a range of 0.55 to 0.71 in inter-observer (psychiatrists vs psychologists) agreement for structural diagnoses, and 0.51 to 0.89 for nosographic diagnoses.In addition, a marked correlation between psychiatrists and psychologists may be noted regarding abstention in both structural (k = 66) and nosographic (k = 73) diagnoses. In fact, recommendations are made for improvement in the consistency of offender assessment in the psycho-legal French context.     

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     

强制调解理论探析

自愿原则是调解的基本原则,但是司法实践中强制性因素的介入,促使了一种具有特色的调解制度——强制调解的兴起。在提高诉讼效率、节约诉讼资源观念的指引下,强制调解在司法领域备受推崇。但是,有关强制调解是否应当被采用的争议还是层出不穷。要搞清楚这一问题,有必要对强制调解进行法理分析。     

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。