调解与审判适当分离问题研究
|
摘要
近年来,"调解优先,调判结合"成为我国民事诉讼的重要指导思想。但是,调解与判决的长期结合使当前的法院调解与审判工作深陷困境,法官的双重身份及调解偏好严重削弱了调解的自愿性与保密性,折损了司法公正与权威。调解与审判虽同为法院的纠纷解决方式,但二者在基本功能、适用程序、法律效果和社会效果等方面均存在差异,为了充分发挥二者的功能,保障调解正当性以及当事人的诉权,维护司法公正,应当将调审适当进行分离。
In recent years, "giving priority to mediation,combination of mediation and judgment" has become an important guiding ideology of civil litigation in our country. However, the long-term combination of mediation and judgment made the current court mediation and trial work in deep trouble, the judge's double identity and mediation preference severely weakened the voluntariness and confidentiality of mediation and harmed judicial justice and judicial authority. The court mediation and trial are the same as the way to solve the dispute, but there are differences in the applicable basic function procedures,lawful and social effect in many aspects, the proper separation of mediation and trial is more conducive to give full play to the two functions, ensure the legitimacy of the mediation and the parties right of action, safeguard judicial justice and conform to the development trend of the occupation at the same time.
In recent years, "giving priority to mediation,combination of mediation and judgment" has become an important guiding ideology of civil litigation in our country. However, the long-term combination of mediation and judgment made the current court mediation and trial work in deep trouble, the judge's double identity and mediation preference severely weakened the voluntariness and confidentiality of mediation and harmed judicial justice and judicial authority. The court mediation and trial are the same as the way to solve the dispute, but there are differences in the applicable basic function procedures,lawful and social effect in many aspects, the proper separation of mediation and trial is more conducive to give full play to the two functions, ensure the legitimacy of the mediation and the parties right of action, safeguard judicial justice and conform to the development trend of the occupation at the same time.
引文
[1]肖建华,唐玉富.论法院调解保密原则[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2011,(04):138-146.
[2]李浩.调解归调解,审判归审判:民事审判中的调审分离[J].中国法学,2013,(03):5-18.
[3]﹝日﹞棚濑孝雄.纠纷的解决与审判制度[M].王亚新,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994:13.
[4]﹝美﹞米尔伊安·R.达玛什卡.司法和国家权力的多种面孔比较视野中的法律程序[M].郑戈,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:152.
[5]最高人民法院诉讼调解规范化研究调研组.全面实施“庭前调解”,积极践行法院工作主题[N].人民法院报,2004-03-06(B02).
[6]安士勇.管城立案阶段施行调解[N].人民法院报,2006-05-27(003).
[7]胡道才.调审适度分离:“调解归调解,审判归审判”的另一路径——以南京两级法院改革试点工作为研究对象[J].当代法学,2014,(02):76-86.
[2]李浩.调解归调解,审判归审判:民事审判中的调审分离[J].中国法学,2013,(03):5-18.
[3]﹝日﹞棚濑孝雄.纠纷的解决与审判制度[M].王亚新,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994:13.
[4]﹝美﹞米尔伊安·R.达玛什卡.司法和国家权力的多种面孔比较视野中的法律程序[M].郑戈,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:152.
[5]最高人民法院诉讼调解规范化研究调研组.全面实施“庭前调解”,积极践行法院工作主题[N].人民法院报,2004-03-06(B02).
[6]安士勇.管城立案阶段施行调解[N].人民法院报,2006-05-27(003).
[7]胡道才.调审适度分离:“调解归调解,审判归审判”的另一路径——以南京两级法院改革试点工作为研究对象[J].当代法学,2014,(02):76-86.