家事调解制度研究
|
摘要
家庭和睦、社会和谐是人类永恒的追求与主题。作为辅助当事人理性思考、审慎抉择并友好、合作性解决纠纷的一种方式或程序,调解在家事法律领域具有极其重要的价值。本文从基本理论、实务发展以及制度规范等方面对家事调解制度予以分析,并就中国家事调解制度之完善提出了一些建议,以期能够对中国家事调解性质与功能之认识、实务类型与模式的发展以及相关制度完善有所裨益。
本文除引言外,共分为四部分,共八章,全文约23万字。
第一部分：家事调解之基本理论。本部分通过调解之主体与客体两方面对家事调解之界定、性质与功能予以阐释。
第一章：家事调解对象论。家事调解的对象即特定范围的家事纠纷。何谓家事纠纷?哪些家事纠纷属于调解的范畴?理论与实务中并未有统一之界定。一般而言,家事纠纷,即婚姻家庭纠纷,其包括婚姻、亲子、收养、扶养、子女监护与探望以及其他家庭成员之间可由家事法律调整之纠纷。其具有如下特征：1.身份性；2.非理性；3.个别性；4.私益为主,兼具公益性。家事纠纷不仅被认为是特殊的纠纷类型,其实体与程序规范也大多是专门性。家事调解不同于一般民事调解。同时,笔者具体对家事纠纷调解范围或者说家事调解对象的范围予以分析,特别是家庭暴力和婚姻无效等。
第二章：家事调解主体论。本章就调解参与人员类型及其角色予以分析：一是家事纠纷当事人在调解中的地位问题。本文认为,在家事调解中,当事人的地位体现在其对调解程序与结果的“掌控”程度上,其具体包括进入、退出机制的自愿、调解过程中的自主以及调解结果的合意三个方面。二是家事调解员之实务规范问题。本文认为,家事调解应以当事人为中心,家事调解员的主要任务是帮助当事人克服障碍并保障协商之公正。并调解员的资质要求(如专业知识、认可)、实务规则、行为规范以及类型(如法官、律师担任调解员)等予以分析。三是子女参与家事调解的情况。文章对子女是否参与调解、如何参与调解以及中国语境下的子女参与调解情况予以探讨。四是辅助人员参与家事调解之简述。
第二部分：家事调解实务类型与模式。本部分以家事调解类型和模式为对象,分析了家事调解之实务运行。
第三章：家事调解之类型。家事纠纷的特殊性决定家事之调解必须依据其特征性在内容与性质采取针对性处理。因而,实务中,家事调解形成不同类型。不同国家或地区的家事调解类型发展也不相同。例如,在西方现代家事调解的发展历程中,家事调解实务中最早兴起的是以离异夫妇为对象的离婚调解(全面调解),而获得法院和司法最为广泛或者说最为主要的支持的则是子女监护与探望调解以及收养调解等。现在则又兴起老年人调解、婚姻调解。而且,不同类型的家事调解与本国法律理念、制度规范紧密相关,并体现出不同特点。本文分别对离婚调解、子女监护与探望调解、婚姻调解以及老年人调解等实务中的主要调解类型进行了具体的论述。并对中外在内容、性质上的差异予以探讨。例如,在西方,离婚调解仅针对离婚善后事宜,当事人离异与否属于婚姻调解的范畴。而且,离婚善后事宜依其性质与特点之不同还被区分为人身关系调解与财产关系调解。而在中国,离婚纠纷之调解,不仅不区分是否离异与离异善后事宜,而且一定程度上具有“劝和”的色彩。
第四章：家事调解之模式。随着家事调解制度的不断发展,实践中形成了各种不同的调解模式。每一种模式都有自己独特的理念和理论、独特的方法、技术以及干预方式。前后连贯、清晰明了的实务模式将有助于增强调解员对其“该做什么”、“为什么要这么做”的认知,并进一步了解干预模式的可能与适当、干预的效果等。而且,厘清认识,把握宗旨,有利于对调解本质及其制度内容之科学认识。文章针对性地就东、西方家事调解模式的一些主要类型进行了比较分析,并探讨了家事调解模式理论与实践之冲突、模式的多样化与调解之本质以及中国语境下家事调解模式区分之意义等问题。
第三部分：域外家事调解制度。本部分对域外主要国家和地区的家事调解立法与实践予以论述与比较。
第五章：西方国家家事调解之立法与实务。西方现代家事调解制度于20世纪70年代起兴起于北美,随后一路席卷欧洲和大洋洲,并掀起一股“调解风”。当前,西方不少国家设有家事调解制度。本文以地域为区分,分别就美洲、欧洲以及大洋洲家事调解制度之概况进行了论述,并选取美国、加拿大、英国、法国、澳大利亚以及新西兰等国家之家事调解立法与实践予以具体分析。总体来看,这些国家的家事调解制度均比较发达,已经一定程度上实现了专业性、职业化、制度化的发展。
第六章：东方国家(地区)家事调解之立法与实务。在东方国家(地区)传统社会中,调解一直是重要的家(民)事纠纷解决方式。其调解不仅具有实质主义色彩(如承担社会关系和谐目标等),而且在家事纠纷的解决中发挥着重要的作用。但20世纪以来,现代法制发展时期,不同国家或地区在家事调解制度发展方面形成不同路径或风格。本章特选取日本、中国港澳台地区家事调解制度予以简要论述。就其家事调解立法情况、制度主要内容、特点予以详细地介绍和分析。例如日本的家事调停制度、香港和台湾近些年兴起之家事调解试验等。
第四部分：中国家事调解制度。本部分对我国家事调解制度之历史与现状进行考察与反思,并就我国专业化家事调解制度之构建提出具体设想。
第七章：中国家事调解制度之历史与现状。本章针对我国不同时期家事调解之概况予以简要考察与总结。第一节分析了中国传统民间调解中的家事纠纷调解；第二节则对中国现代家事调解予以考察；第三节对中外传统与现代家事调解制度进行了比较；第四节反思了当代家事纠纷调解存在之不足。
第八章：中国专业化家事调解制度构建之思考。本章首先分析了建构专业化家事调解制度之意义。文章认为,中国社会实际需要、当前纠纷解决机制之不足、家事调解制度的价值决定有必要发展专业化家事调解制度。其次,就如何构建专业化家事调解制度提出若干具体设想。一是理念建构方面,应注意家事纠纷的特质性、家事调解性质与功能的独特性等。二是路径模式方面,应重视模式的意义,积极鼓励和引导实务模式制发展；三是具体内容方面,实现调解程序的独立化、调解主体的职业化、调解对象的特定化、调解内容的专业化、调解程序的规范化以及调解制度规范化；四是社会基础的夯实：实现制度的配套与协调、并通过宣传与教育,进一步增强民众对家事调解制度的了解、认同与接受。
本文主要的学术价值与创新之处在于：
一、从家事法的角度来论述家事调解,探讨其性质与功能。文章认为,家事调解并非简单的家事纠纷之调解,而是以当事人为中心,旨在辅助当事人理性抉择、友好协商以便达成双方均能接受之协议的家事纠纷解决机制。家事纠纷的特殊性具体定了调解在家事领域的重要价值；而家事诉讼之不足以及调解功能的独特性导致现代专业性家事调解制度的兴盛。
二、注重区分中国传统、中国现代以及当代西方家事调解之不同。文章认为,中国现代家事调解制度既不同于传统,也有别于西方现代。并通过古今中西之比较来深化对中国当代家事调解制度之认识。
三、通过域外家事调解制度之比较法分析,特别是家事调解发展之社会背景、制度内容,总结其成功经验,以期对我国家事调解制度之发展、完善有所裨益。
四、从调解基本理论、实务运行两个方面对家事调解之性质与功能予以全面分析。特别是家事调解类型、模式之论述,在国内尚属首次。
五、从家事调解之理念和内容等方面提出中国专业化家事调解制度构建之设想。特别是家事调解程序独立、调解组织同一、发展调解模式等建议均属独创。
The eternal pursuit and theme of human are family happiness and social harmony. Mediation, as a method or procedure which can assist the party to ponder rationally, consider carefully and settle the dispute amicably and cooperatively, has a significant value in the field of family law. This PhD. dissertation has analyzed from basic theory, practice development, institutional norm and so on. Furthermore, it has also advanced some comprehensive proposals of family mediation system of China in order to consummate mediation's properties and functions, practice pattern and model development and some other relevant systems in China.
Besides the introduction, this PhD. dissertation consists of four parts, including eight chapters, about 230 thousands words.
Part one:basic theory of family mediation. This part explains family mediation's concept, properties and function on the basis of its subject and object.
Chapter I:object theory of family mediation. Family dispute which in particular range is the object of family mediation. There is not a common understanding between theory and practice about the concept of family dispute and which family dispute is belong to mediation category. The author argues that family dispute means the disputes occur in marriage or family. Disputes including marital disputes, parent-child disputes, adoption disputes, maintenance disputes, child custody and visitation disputes and some other disputes occurring among family members can be applied to by family law. Its characteristic is as follows:bases on the principle of identity; irrational; specifics; live by private interest combining public welfare. Family dispute is s special dispute type; both of the entity and the procedure are specialized. Simultaneously, this dissertation has also discussed the range of family mediation object, especially domestic violence and annulment of marriage.
Chapter II:subject theory of family mediation. This chapter analyzed the pattern of participant to family mediation and its role. Firstly, it discussed the parties'position in family mediation. The author argues that the party to family disputes could "control" the procedure and consequence of family mediation which includes that ingress and egress of family mediation mechanism of one's own accord, act on one's own in the course of family mediation and consensus of mediation consequence and all this can embody its position. Secondly, it expounded the specification of family mediator. The author holds that the family mediator ought to center the party around, and its main duties are helping the party overcome barriers and ensuring impartial consultation. Moreover, this chapter analyzed the qualification requirements of family mediator, rules of family mediation practice, code and pattern of conduct. Thirdly, it dealt with the offspring whether and how to participate in family mediation and relevant participative condition in China. Fourthly, it discussed the supporting staffs who take part in family mediation.
Part two:the practice type and mode of family mediation. This part analyzes the practice of family mediation on the base of different types of family mediation and family mediation models.
Chapter III:the type of family mediation. There are sorts of types of family mediation in practice, and the development of mediation types in different countries and areas are also different. For instance, the earliest rise of family mediation practice in its development in western countries is divorce mediation whose objects are divorced couples. However, child custody and visitation mediation and adoption mediation are obtained comprehensive support by judicial. Nowadays, elder mediation and marital mediation are rising slowly. Furthermore, different types of family mediation are closely related to the native idea of law and institutional rule. This dissertation has expounded divorce mediation, child custody and visitation mediation, marital mediation, elder mediation and so on. In the meantime, it also discussed the distinct content and properties of type of family mediation between home and abroad.
Chapter IV:the mode of family mediation. There are kinds of family mediation modes in practice as the development of family mediation system. Each mode has own particular idea and theory, special method and technology and intervention mean. Coherent and clear practice mode is conducive to enhance mediators'cognitive such as "what to do" or "why do this", and facilitates to boost comprehend about the scientific of mediation nature and its contents. This dissertation has expounded some main mediation modes of eastern and western through comparative study, analyzed the conflict between family mediation modes'theory and practice, and the significance of diversified mode, the nature of mediation and divisive of family mediation modes.
Part three:extraterritorial family mediation. This part strives to do comparative study of the family mediation legislation and practice in some foreign main countries and areas.
Chapter V:the legislation and practice of family mediation in western countries. The family mediation system rose in the seventies of the 20th century, and then swept across Europe and Oceania. This chapter expounded the condition of family mediation system of Americas, Europe and Oceania, and chose America, Canada, Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand to Specific analyze. The family mediation system in all these countries has more developed, to a certain extent have realized specialization, professional and institutionalized.
Chapter VI: the legislation and practice of family mediation in eastern countries. Mediation is always an important means to solve disputes. However, since 20th century, as the development of modern Legal system, different countries and areas experienced different family mediation styles. This chapter chose Japan(Korea), Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan to introduce own family mediation system. For instance, Chotei in Japan and family mediation trial lately is arising in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Part four:family mediation in China. This part strives to retrospect and inspect the history and status quo of Chinese family mediation system, and put forward some proposals to establish the specialized family mediation system.
Chapter VII:the history and present condition of family mediation in China. This chapter summarized the family mediation in China at various times. Firstly, it analyzed traditional folk family mediation; secondly, it inspected the present condition of family mediation in China; thirdly, it compared the traditional and modern family mediation system between China and foreign country; fourthly, it rethinks profoundly the deficiency of modern family dispute mediation.
Chapter VIII: the establishment of specialized family mediation system in China. Firstly, this chapter analyzed the significant of establishing the specialized family mediation. Establishing the specialized family mediation is necessary because the condition is discontented. Secondly, this chapter advanced some concrete suggestions to establish the specialized family mediation system. On the idea of establishment, we ought to cognize the chrematistics of family dispute, the nature and special function of family mediation. On the mode chosen, we ought to emphasize the significant of mode chosen. On the concert contents, we ought to strive to realize the independent of mediation procedure, professionalize of mediation subject, specialization of mediation object, specialization of mediation contents, normalization of mediation procedure and standardization of mediation system. On the Tamping social foundation, we ought to realize the harmonious and assorted system, and through educational propaganda to strengthen the masses of the people to acquaint, identify and accept the family mediation system.
The academic value and innovation of this dissertation are as follows:
Firstly, the dissertation has approached the nature and function of family mediation in terms of family law. Family mediation is not only simple to mediate family dispute, it should be a mechanism which can solve family dispute friendly and amicably. The particularity of family dispute displays the mediation has an important value in family law; the deficiency of family litigation and the peculiarity function of mediation leads to the rising of the modern professional family mediation system.
Secondly, the dissertation has made out the difference of Chinese tradition, contemporary and occidental family mediation system. It holds that the modern family mediation system in China is different from Chinese tradition and occidental contemporary. We should deepen the reorganization of the modern family mediation system in China by ancient and modern Chinese and western comparative study.
Thirdly, the dissertation has made comparative studies among foreign countries, especially the social background and system contents of the development of family mediation in order to do some efforts to perfect family mediation system in China.
Fourthly, the dissertation made analysis to the nature and function of family mediation from the foundational theory and practice operation, especially the mode or pattern is emerging in China for the first time.
Fifthly, the dissertation put forward the established conceives of professional family mediation system in China from the idea and content of family mediation, especially the independent mediation procedure, the same of mediation organization and the development of mediation mode, all of these are original in China.
本文除引言外,共分为四部分,共八章,全文约23万字。
第一部分：家事调解之基本理论。本部分通过调解之主体与客体两方面对家事调解之界定、性质与功能予以阐释。
第一章：家事调解对象论。家事调解的对象即特定范围的家事纠纷。何谓家事纠纷?哪些家事纠纷属于调解的范畴?理论与实务中并未有统一之界定。一般而言,家事纠纷,即婚姻家庭纠纷,其包括婚姻、亲子、收养、扶养、子女监护与探望以及其他家庭成员之间可由家事法律调整之纠纷。其具有如下特征：1.身份性；2.非理性；3.个别性；4.私益为主,兼具公益性。家事纠纷不仅被认为是特殊的纠纷类型,其实体与程序规范也大多是专门性。家事调解不同于一般民事调解。同时,笔者具体对家事纠纷调解范围或者说家事调解对象的范围予以分析,特别是家庭暴力和婚姻无效等。
第二章：家事调解主体论。本章就调解参与人员类型及其角色予以分析：一是家事纠纷当事人在调解中的地位问题。本文认为,在家事调解中,当事人的地位体现在其对调解程序与结果的“掌控”程度上,其具体包括进入、退出机制的自愿、调解过程中的自主以及调解结果的合意三个方面。二是家事调解员之实务规范问题。本文认为,家事调解应以当事人为中心,家事调解员的主要任务是帮助当事人克服障碍并保障协商之公正。并调解员的资质要求(如专业知识、认可)、实务规则、行为规范以及类型(如法官、律师担任调解员)等予以分析。三是子女参与家事调解的情况。文章对子女是否参与调解、如何参与调解以及中国语境下的子女参与调解情况予以探讨。四是辅助人员参与家事调解之简述。
第二部分：家事调解实务类型与模式。本部分以家事调解类型和模式为对象,分析了家事调解之实务运行。
第三章：家事调解之类型。家事纠纷的特殊性决定家事之调解必须依据其特征性在内容与性质采取针对性处理。因而,实务中,家事调解形成不同类型。不同国家或地区的家事调解类型发展也不相同。例如,在西方现代家事调解的发展历程中,家事调解实务中最早兴起的是以离异夫妇为对象的离婚调解(全面调解),而获得法院和司法最为广泛或者说最为主要的支持的则是子女监护与探望调解以及收养调解等。现在则又兴起老年人调解、婚姻调解。而且,不同类型的家事调解与本国法律理念、制度规范紧密相关,并体现出不同特点。本文分别对离婚调解、子女监护与探望调解、婚姻调解以及老年人调解等实务中的主要调解类型进行了具体的论述。并对中外在内容、性质上的差异予以探讨。例如,在西方,离婚调解仅针对离婚善后事宜,当事人离异与否属于婚姻调解的范畴。而且,离婚善后事宜依其性质与特点之不同还被区分为人身关系调解与财产关系调解。而在中国,离婚纠纷之调解,不仅不区分是否离异与离异善后事宜,而且一定程度上具有“劝和”的色彩。
第四章：家事调解之模式。随着家事调解制度的不断发展,实践中形成了各种不同的调解模式。每一种模式都有自己独特的理念和理论、独特的方法、技术以及干预方式。前后连贯、清晰明了的实务模式将有助于增强调解员对其“该做什么”、“为什么要这么做”的认知,并进一步了解干预模式的可能与适当、干预的效果等。而且,厘清认识,把握宗旨,有利于对调解本质及其制度内容之科学认识。文章针对性地就东、西方家事调解模式的一些主要类型进行了比较分析,并探讨了家事调解模式理论与实践之冲突、模式的多样化与调解之本质以及中国语境下家事调解模式区分之意义等问题。
第三部分：域外家事调解制度。本部分对域外主要国家和地区的家事调解立法与实践予以论述与比较。
第五章：西方国家家事调解之立法与实务。西方现代家事调解制度于20世纪70年代起兴起于北美,随后一路席卷欧洲和大洋洲,并掀起一股“调解风”。当前,西方不少国家设有家事调解制度。本文以地域为区分,分别就美洲、欧洲以及大洋洲家事调解制度之概况进行了论述,并选取美国、加拿大、英国、法国、澳大利亚以及新西兰等国家之家事调解立法与实践予以具体分析。总体来看,这些国家的家事调解制度均比较发达,已经一定程度上实现了专业性、职业化、制度化的发展。
第六章：东方国家(地区)家事调解之立法与实务。在东方国家(地区)传统社会中,调解一直是重要的家(民)事纠纷解决方式。其调解不仅具有实质主义色彩(如承担社会关系和谐目标等),而且在家事纠纷的解决中发挥着重要的作用。但20世纪以来,现代法制发展时期,不同国家或地区在家事调解制度发展方面形成不同路径或风格。本章特选取日本、中国港澳台地区家事调解制度予以简要论述。就其家事调解立法情况、制度主要内容、特点予以详细地介绍和分析。例如日本的家事调停制度、香港和台湾近些年兴起之家事调解试验等。
第四部分：中国家事调解制度。本部分对我国家事调解制度之历史与现状进行考察与反思,并就我国专业化家事调解制度之构建提出具体设想。
第七章：中国家事调解制度之历史与现状。本章针对我国不同时期家事调解之概况予以简要考察与总结。第一节分析了中国传统民间调解中的家事纠纷调解；第二节则对中国现代家事调解予以考察；第三节对中外传统与现代家事调解制度进行了比较；第四节反思了当代家事纠纷调解存在之不足。
第八章：中国专业化家事调解制度构建之思考。本章首先分析了建构专业化家事调解制度之意义。文章认为,中国社会实际需要、当前纠纷解决机制之不足、家事调解制度的价值决定有必要发展专业化家事调解制度。其次,就如何构建专业化家事调解制度提出若干具体设想。一是理念建构方面,应注意家事纠纷的特质性、家事调解性质与功能的独特性等。二是路径模式方面,应重视模式的意义,积极鼓励和引导实务模式制发展；三是具体内容方面,实现调解程序的独立化、调解主体的职业化、调解对象的特定化、调解内容的专业化、调解程序的规范化以及调解制度规范化；四是社会基础的夯实：实现制度的配套与协调、并通过宣传与教育,进一步增强民众对家事调解制度的了解、认同与接受。
本文主要的学术价值与创新之处在于：
一、从家事法的角度来论述家事调解,探讨其性质与功能。文章认为,家事调解并非简单的家事纠纷之调解,而是以当事人为中心,旨在辅助当事人理性抉择、友好协商以便达成双方均能接受之协议的家事纠纷解决机制。家事纠纷的特殊性具体定了调解在家事领域的重要价值；而家事诉讼之不足以及调解功能的独特性导致现代专业性家事调解制度的兴盛。
二、注重区分中国传统、中国现代以及当代西方家事调解之不同。文章认为,中国现代家事调解制度既不同于传统,也有别于西方现代。并通过古今中西之比较来深化对中国当代家事调解制度之认识。
三、通过域外家事调解制度之比较法分析,特别是家事调解发展之社会背景、制度内容,总结其成功经验,以期对我国家事调解制度之发展、完善有所裨益。
四、从调解基本理论、实务运行两个方面对家事调解之性质与功能予以全面分析。特别是家事调解类型、模式之论述,在国内尚属首次。
五、从家事调解之理念和内容等方面提出中国专业化家事调解制度构建之设想。特别是家事调解程序独立、调解组织同一、发展调解模式等建议均属独创。
The eternal pursuit and theme of human are family happiness and social harmony. Mediation, as a method or procedure which can assist the party to ponder rationally, consider carefully and settle the dispute amicably and cooperatively, has a significant value in the field of family law. This PhD. dissertation has analyzed from basic theory, practice development, institutional norm and so on. Furthermore, it has also advanced some comprehensive proposals of family mediation system of China in order to consummate mediation's properties and functions, practice pattern and model development and some other relevant systems in China.
Besides the introduction, this PhD. dissertation consists of four parts, including eight chapters, about 230 thousands words.
Part one:basic theory of family mediation. This part explains family mediation's concept, properties and function on the basis of its subject and object.
Chapter I:object theory of family mediation. Family dispute which in particular range is the object of family mediation. There is not a common understanding between theory and practice about the concept of family dispute and which family dispute is belong to mediation category. The author argues that family dispute means the disputes occur in marriage or family. Disputes including marital disputes, parent-child disputes, adoption disputes, maintenance disputes, child custody and visitation disputes and some other disputes occurring among family members can be applied to by family law. Its characteristic is as follows:bases on the principle of identity; irrational; specifics; live by private interest combining public welfare. Family dispute is s special dispute type; both of the entity and the procedure are specialized. Simultaneously, this dissertation has also discussed the range of family mediation object, especially domestic violence and annulment of marriage.
Chapter II:subject theory of family mediation. This chapter analyzed the pattern of participant to family mediation and its role. Firstly, it discussed the parties'position in family mediation. The author argues that the party to family disputes could "control" the procedure and consequence of family mediation which includes that ingress and egress of family mediation mechanism of one's own accord, act on one's own in the course of family mediation and consensus of mediation consequence and all this can embody its position. Secondly, it expounded the specification of family mediator. The author holds that the family mediator ought to center the party around, and its main duties are helping the party overcome barriers and ensuring impartial consultation. Moreover, this chapter analyzed the qualification requirements of family mediator, rules of family mediation practice, code and pattern of conduct. Thirdly, it dealt with the offspring whether and how to participate in family mediation and relevant participative condition in China. Fourthly, it discussed the supporting staffs who take part in family mediation.
Part two:the practice type and mode of family mediation. This part analyzes the practice of family mediation on the base of different types of family mediation and family mediation models.
Chapter III:the type of family mediation. There are sorts of types of family mediation in practice, and the development of mediation types in different countries and areas are also different. For instance, the earliest rise of family mediation practice in its development in western countries is divorce mediation whose objects are divorced couples. However, child custody and visitation mediation and adoption mediation are obtained comprehensive support by judicial. Nowadays, elder mediation and marital mediation are rising slowly. Furthermore, different types of family mediation are closely related to the native idea of law and institutional rule. This dissertation has expounded divorce mediation, child custody and visitation mediation, marital mediation, elder mediation and so on. In the meantime, it also discussed the distinct content and properties of type of family mediation between home and abroad.
Chapter IV:the mode of family mediation. There are kinds of family mediation modes in practice as the development of family mediation system. Each mode has own particular idea and theory, special method and technology and intervention mean. Coherent and clear practice mode is conducive to enhance mediators'cognitive such as "what to do" or "why do this", and facilitates to boost comprehend about the scientific of mediation nature and its contents. This dissertation has expounded some main mediation modes of eastern and western through comparative study, analyzed the conflict between family mediation modes'theory and practice, and the significance of diversified mode, the nature of mediation and divisive of family mediation modes.
Part three:extraterritorial family mediation. This part strives to do comparative study of the family mediation legislation and practice in some foreign main countries and areas.
Chapter V:the legislation and practice of family mediation in western countries. The family mediation system rose in the seventies of the 20th century, and then swept across Europe and Oceania. This chapter expounded the condition of family mediation system of Americas, Europe and Oceania, and chose America, Canada, Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand to Specific analyze. The family mediation system in all these countries has more developed, to a certain extent have realized specialization, professional and institutionalized.
Chapter VI: the legislation and practice of family mediation in eastern countries. Mediation is always an important means to solve disputes. However, since 20th century, as the development of modern Legal system, different countries and areas experienced different family mediation styles. This chapter chose Japan(Korea), Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan to introduce own family mediation system. For instance, Chotei in Japan and family mediation trial lately is arising in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Part four:family mediation in China. This part strives to retrospect and inspect the history and status quo of Chinese family mediation system, and put forward some proposals to establish the specialized family mediation system.
Chapter VII:the history and present condition of family mediation in China. This chapter summarized the family mediation in China at various times. Firstly, it analyzed traditional folk family mediation; secondly, it inspected the present condition of family mediation in China; thirdly, it compared the traditional and modern family mediation system between China and foreign country; fourthly, it rethinks profoundly the deficiency of modern family dispute mediation.
Chapter VIII: the establishment of specialized family mediation system in China. Firstly, this chapter analyzed the significant of establishing the specialized family mediation. Establishing the specialized family mediation is necessary because the condition is discontented. Secondly, this chapter advanced some concrete suggestions to establish the specialized family mediation system. On the idea of establishment, we ought to cognize the chrematistics of family dispute, the nature and special function of family mediation. On the mode chosen, we ought to emphasize the significant of mode chosen. On the concert contents, we ought to strive to realize the independent of mediation procedure, professionalize of mediation subject, specialization of mediation object, specialization of mediation contents, normalization of mediation procedure and standardization of mediation system. On the Tamping social foundation, we ought to realize the harmonious and assorted system, and through educational propaganda to strengthen the masses of the people to acquaint, identify and accept the family mediation system.
The academic value and innovation of this dissertation are as follows:
Firstly, the dissertation has approached the nature and function of family mediation in terms of family law. Family mediation is not only simple to mediate family dispute, it should be a mechanism which can solve family dispute friendly and amicably. The particularity of family dispute displays the mediation has an important value in family law; the deficiency of family litigation and the peculiarity function of mediation leads to the rising of the modern professional family mediation system.
Secondly, the dissertation has made out the difference of Chinese tradition, contemporary and occidental family mediation system. It holds that the modern family mediation system in China is different from Chinese tradition and occidental contemporary. We should deepen the reorganization of the modern family mediation system in China by ancient and modern Chinese and western comparative study.
Thirdly, the dissertation has made comparative studies among foreign countries, especially the social background and system contents of the development of family mediation in order to do some efforts to perfect family mediation system in China.
Fourthly, the dissertation made analysis to the nature and function of family mediation from the foundational theory and practice operation, especially the mode or pattern is emerging in China for the first time.
Fifthly, the dissertation put forward the established conceives of professional family mediation system in China from the idea and content of family mediation, especially the independent mediation procedure, the same of mediation organization and the development of mediation mode, all of these are original in China.
引文
9表格内容来源于Neil Robinson, ADR Professional:Developing Family Mediation, [2009] Fam Law 253。
19 See Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence,9 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L.145, (2003).
20参见高凤仙著：《家庭暴力防治法规专论》,台湾：五南图书出版社有限公司,1998年版,第20页。
32参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第198-200页。
33参见陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第019页、第157-159页：韩炜：“中请宣告婚姻无效案件相关问题——赵某申请宣告赵某某与葛某婚姻无效案法律问题探讨”,北京市高级人民法院编：《婚姻家庭新型疑难案例判解》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第4-13页。34[德]奥特马·尧厄尼希：《民事诉讼法》,周翠译,北京：法律出版社,2003年版,第50页。
35例如有观点认为,婚姻关系、身份关系确认案件的处理和解决,不仅直接事关案件当事人个人的权益保护,更与国家的婚姻制度、身份制度及社会的公序良俗密不可分,因此均须以国家法律的明确规定作为解决纠纷的依据,而不允许各方当事人通过达成调解协议的方式来合意处分,这是当事人意思自治的一个例外。否则,将会出现婚姻关系和身份关系是否存在或是否有效可以由当事人自己来合意商定的荒唐局面。参见赵刚、王杏飞：“我国法院调解制度的新发展”,《法学评论》,2005年第6期。我们认为,且不说当事人意思自治与国家强制干预的衡平问题,即使调解当事人达成协议也并非意味着当事人自行决定,因为调解组织和法院会依法对协议是否违背法律规定予以审查。
36参见陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第018、157-159页：黄松有主编：《婚姻法司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第38-40页。
37参见王洪：《从身份到契约》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版,第15页。
38参见蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,科学出版社,2007年版,第352页。
39日本《家事审判法》第23条。
40参见邓学仁等：((DNA鉴定一亲子关系争端之解决》(2007年修订版),台湾：元照出版有限公司,2006年第二版,第162-205页。
41美国《家事与离婚调解实务示范标准》第1条即规定：当事人自主决策是家事调解的基础性原则；调解程序取决于调解参与人自愿、清楚地(informed)决策。See The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation 2000, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1, pp.121-138.
46国外关于家事强制调解与当事人自主决策的讨论,参见Timothy Hedeen, Coercion and Self-determination in Court-connected Mediation: All Mediation are Voluntary, but Some are More Voluntary than Others, The Justice System Journal, Vol.26, No.3,2005, pp.273-291.
47参见宋明志：“论法院调解的强制性”,《政法论丛》,2008年第1期,第77-81页。当然该文一些说法尚值得商榷。例如该文中陈述“家事案件先行调解比较容易被理论和实务所接受,盖因其与家庭关系密切而有必要以调解促成稳定、妥善解决”；其“其”字指代什么十分费解；该文认为我国婚姻法第32条规定之离婚调解并非是诉前强制调解,等等,对此详见后评。
48参见周永坤：“论强制性调解对法治和公平的冲击”,《法律科学》,2007年第3期,第11-24页。
49参见高玮玮：“强制离婚调解制度的评析与走向”,《律师世界》,2000年第8期,第36-39页。
50参见陈弘毅：“调解、诉讼与公正——对现代自由社会和儒家传统的反思”,《现代法学》,2001年第3期,第11页。
51从英文术语来看,强制调解中的“强制”,使用的词汇是"mandatory"而并非"compulsory".前者更多的是指一种“法定的、义务的”强制,而后者还含有“强迫”的意思。显然,对当事人意志的违反更多是指对其自由意愿的强迫。
54 See Standard Ⅱ of Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1, 2001, pp.121-138.
55调解员的年龄关系着其人生阅历(经历与经验)、并一定程度上决定其对婚姻家庭及其纠纷之认识、所持态度、应对举措。就笔者非正式接触之当事人、律师感受而言,当前中国法院调解中,一个十分突出的问题是法官年轻化一定程度上影响着家事纠纷(特别是离婚等涉及身份关系重大变更之纠纷)的当事人及其代理人对调解法官之信任度。56关于加拿大、英国、澳大利亚等国家的家事调解员认可制度,可参见香港特别行政区立法委员会立法秘书处：《选定海外司法管辖区家事调解员的认可制度》,资料摘要编号IN17、03-04。
57关于欧洲家事调解员的培训内容及其一般标准,可参见欧洲司法效率委员会(CEPEJ)《关于更好实施现行家事调解以及民事案件调解建议之指导方针》第1.6条之规定。See CEPEJ, Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Recommendation Concerning Family Mediation and Mediation in Civil Matters, CEPJ (2007)14, p.4.
58 See Lawyers and Divorce Mediation in Florida, at: http://www.fmc.ca/index.php?page=12/2009-09-09.
59 For examples, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators(1995); Iowa Supreme Court, Rules Governing Standards of Practice for Lawyer-Mediators in Family Disputes(1986), etc
60 C. Eileen Pruett, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation: Guidelines for a Mature Profession, American Journal of Family Law, Vol.15, Issue 4,2001, p.276. 61 See Old AFM - AFCC Standards of Practice for Divorce and Family Mediation(1984), at: http://www.mediate.com/artic-les/afmstds.cfm/2009-09-09.
62 See ABA, Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Law Disputes 1984, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4, 1984, pp.445-460.
63该规定制定和采用于1994年,2005年被修订。See ABA, AAA.& Assn. for Conflict Res., Model Standards of Conduct
for Mediators, at: http://www.abanet.org/dispute/news/ModelStandardsofConductfor Mediatorsfina105.pdf/2009-09-09.
64该组织全称为National Council of Dispute Resolution Organization,是一个联合组织,由家事调解员协会(AFC)、美国律师协会纠纷解决委员会、AFCC、冲突解决教育网(Conflict Resolution Education Network)、全国社区调解协会(the National Association for Community Mediation) 、全国和平与冲突解决会议(the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution)以及纠纷解决专家协会等组织组成。
65 The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1,2001, pp.121-138.
66该示范标准具体内容介绍可参见Andrew Schepard, An Introduction to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Law Quarterly,Vol.35. No.1,2001, pp.1-26.
67 See Alison Taylor, Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Context, Ethics, Influence, and Transformative Process, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.14, No.3,1997, pp.215-236.
68在西方家事调解文本与实务中,调解中立究竟是指“调解员与双方当事人关系无利害关系、无偏见以及平等对待”还是调解员“超然于调解程序与结果”一直存在不同的看法,参见Susan Douglas, Neutrality in Mediation: A Study of Mediator Perceptions, Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, Vol.8, No.1,2008, pp.139-157.
69在国外,家事调解一般都是“面对面”调解,“穿梭外交”、“私下会见”或者“背靠背”调解仅在权力失衡如严重家庭暴力等特殊情形使用。在我国,最高人民法院《关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第7条规定,调解时当事人各方应当同时在场,但根据需要也可以对当事人分别作调解工作。何谓“需要”,不得而知,标准何在,亦不可知。实务中,由于调解人员(无论是法院调解还是人民调解)通常担任劝解、说服工作,故分别作调解工作的比较常见。程序的宽松客观上给调解人员“权力恣意”提供了空间：例如利用“所谓的”判决结果劝服当事人让步或接受其提出的解决方案等等。
70 See Orna Cohen, Naomi Dattner, and Ahron Luxenburg, The Limits of the Mediator's Neutrality, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4, Summer 1999, pp.341-348; Janet Rifkin, Jonathan Millen, Sara Cobb, Toward a New Discourse for Mediation: A Critique of Neutrality, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 2,1991, Pages 151-164; Kevin Gibson, Leigh Thompson and Max H. Bazerman, Shortcomings of Neutrality in Mediation:Solutions Based on Rationality, Negotiation Journal, Volume 12 Issue 1,2008, pp.69-80.
71参见[加]岳云编著：《家庭调解——适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽、王振福、袁菊花译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第72-73页。
72 See Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Third Edition), England: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008, pp.143-146.
73在我国,调解员提出调解方案供当事人协商参考在实务中司空见惯,甚至相关法律亦对此明确规定。例如,《最高人民法院关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第8条。有观点认为这是因为法院调解性质上是审判权与当事人处分权的结合,因而,法官可以提出方案,只要当事人最终选择是自愿的。并指出台湾地区、韩国也有类似规定。参见杨润时主编：《最高人民法院民事调解工作司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社2004年版,第92-96页。但问题是,此处,当事人的“自愿”如何界定与把握?基于法官身份的双重性考虑,如何保障法官的立场与建议对当事人的影响是正向的或者说起码不是负向的?我们认为,调解中法官浓厚的职权主义色彩源于纠纷解决机制(无论是传统教化型调解还是现代司法)对“实质正义”的追求。
74需要指出的是,评价型调解中调解员提供相关评价,其与促成型调解相比,在公正规则的严格遵守上显然有一定程度地松动,但本质上其仍是坚持形式公正,并不像判断型调解那样,以实质性结果为实现目标。其对法律后果等的评价谨供当事人决策参考,而不是作为当事人解决方案的衡量标准。
75如美国《统一调解法》第8条和《家事与离婚调解实务示范标准》之标准7、《欧洲调解员行为法典》第4条,等。
76 See Lawrence R. Freedman, Michael L. Prigoff, Confidentiality in Mediation:The Need for Protection, Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.2:1,1986, pp.37-40; F Crobie, Aspects of Confidentiality in Mediation: A Matter of Balancing Competing Public Interests, CDRJ, Vol.51, No.2,1995, p.51; Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability?, Marquette Law Review, Vol.85,2001-2002,pp.79-84.
77 Carol A. Butler and Dolores D. Walker, The Divorce Mediation Answer Book, New York: Kodansha America, Inc.,1999, pp.19-20.
78 See Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Third Edition), England: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008, pp.183-190.
79 Andrew Schepard, Chapter 22 The Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, in Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem ed., Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.525-526.
80如澳大利亚《1975年家事法法令》第10H条第2款分情况具体列举了同意主体之情况：18岁以上者可以自行同意,18岁以下者须经承担抚养责任者或法院同意：第3款则规定,为保护子女不受伤害、防止或减少严重而紧迫的生命、健康危险、制止暴力行为或故意毁坏他人财产等犯罪行为等情况(有合理理由确信)可以公开相关信息。参见陈苇：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社2009年版,第57-59页。
81对调解员予以年龄要求是调解员资质要求的重要内容之一,例如,美国弗罗里达州、马里兰州法院规则即规定调解员必须年满21周岁,且具有本科及以上学历(See Rule 17-104(a)(1)of Maryland Court Rules;http://www.flcourts.org /gen＿public/adr/bin/How To Become a Mediator.pdf);南卡罗来纳州则规定法院家事调解员须年满21周岁并取得法律硕士(JD)及以上学位。See State Requirements for Mediators,at:http://www.mediationworks.com/medcert3/staterequireme-nts.htm/2009-09-12.
82在外国,“调解机构的调解员通常是由律师、法学教授、行业专家等担任；法院附设调解机构的调解员多是由律师、退休法官担任；诉前法院调解的调解员则是由受命法官、法院书记官、准备程序法官担任”,参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第182页。
83在西方所谓法院调解,是指调解地点在法院的调解,即法院附设调解。而我们国家通常所谓的法院调解是指由法官在审判过程中(不管诉前、诉中、诉后)主持之调解,因此,称呼其为似乎“法官调解”更为妥帖。84对于法院(法官)调解的性质,我国民事诉讼法学界一直存在不同认识。最初大多主张是法院行使审判权的一种方式,而常怡教授等则认为其是建立在当事人处分权基础上的,是当事人行使处分权和法院行使审判权相结合的产物。参见江伟主编：《民事诉讼法学原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社1999年版,第528页。还有的认为,法官调解并非是行使审判权,而是促成当事人达成协议,这一点上其与人民调解并无不同。法院调解本质上仍是当事人处分其实体和诉讼权利,和以解决纠纷的行为。只是法院行使职权对当事人合意进行审查确认这一“类似审判”的行为使其于其他形式的调解相区别。参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第3-13页(矛盾的是,该书另一处又主张法官调解实际上是行使审判权,参见第183页)。我们认为,无论是抱持哪种主张,与人民调解,特别是西方现代调解相比较可见,“由法官主持调解、在审判中调解、讲求查明事实、分清是非,而且调解协议具有裁判效力、甚至当事人不得上诉”等等这些特征都鲜明地表明法官(法院)调解司法属性(不管是否认同其是审判性质),因此法院(法院)调解常被称呼为诉讼调解、司法调解。
85关于法院附设调解的域外制度介绍,参见辛国清：《法院附设替代性纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,第83-193页(但该作者主张法院附设替代纠纷解决机制本质上是ADR性质,但同时义具有“一定的”司法性质)；范愉主编：《ADR原理与实务》,厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002年版,第466-468页。
86在外国,诉讼案件调解通常是交由法院外的调解组织或个人进行的。调解员都是审判法官以外的专业调解人员,审判法官不同时担任调解员,不得对案件进行调解。调解是独立于诉讼程序之外的又与诉讼程序相连接的程序。调解有其自己的程序规范,与民事诉讼不同。参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,,2008年版,第178页。需要说明的是,基于费用的考虑,当事人较大部分选择政府公立结构服务(包括法院附设调解服务),委托给私人机构与个人的相对少一些。
87其参与调解的人员与我国法院倡导之立案调解主体类似。不同的是,我国的立案调解仍是法官主持,而且具有司法性,似可归于第二类型。当然,西方国家也有少数法院如加拿大哥伦比亚省试点由法官主持调解(此时法官非审判角色而是调解员角色,经专门调解训练)运用标准调解模式调解案件。但其仅为尝试,并不代表实务一般情况。
88 See European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Recommendation Concerning Family Mediation and Mediation in Civil Matters, CEPEJ (2007)14, p.3.
89参见王亚新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期,第3-22页；季卫东：“调解与法制的悖论”,《法学研究》,1989年第5期：江伟、李浩：“市场经济与法院调解制度的完善”,《中国人民大学学报》,1995年第3期；李浩：“论调解不宜作为民事审判权的运作方式”,《法律科学》,1996年第4期,第68-74页；李浩：“民事审判中的调审分离”,《法学研究》,第18卷第4期,第57-68页；张晋红：“法院调解的立法价值探究——简评法院调解的两种改良观点”,《法学研究》,1998年第5期,第110-116页,等等。
90倘若不去除司法性质的司法调解,而一味进行所谓的“对接”实则是缘木求鱼或自相矛盾。因为司法调解本身就是诉讼与调解的正宗“杂交”。有学者形象地将调解与司法相结合的人民审判模式称呼为“调解式判决”。参见王亚 新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期,第3-22页；王亚新：《社会变革中的民事诉讼法》,北京：中国法制出版社,2001年版,第10-18页。
91在西方这些国家,法院为促成当事人和解,中止诉讼后建议或转介有关组织或个人调解；书记员负责调解转介、管理、联络工作以及当事人和解协议制作等事务；法官并不主持调解。认为“法官在双方当事人同意的情况下由法官主持调解”的说法显然是缺乏依据的,参见陈群峰：《离婚利益协调接机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版,第127页。
92例如,在美国,有24个州的立法赋权法官在家事诉讼中转介、指示调解。See Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel, Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV.431,445(2001).
93参见[美]斯蒂芬B戈尔德堡等：《纠纷解决——谈判、调解和其他机制》,蔡彦敏等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第484-488页。
94参见[英]迈克尔努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版,第29-30页。
95 See Craig McEwen and Nancy H. Rogers, Bringing the Lawyers into Divorce Mediation, ABA Dispute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994, pp.8-10; Craig A. McEwen, Nancy H. Rogers, and Richard J. Maiman, Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation,79 Minn. L. Rev.1317(1994-1995).
100 See Pauline h. tesler, The Organized Bar and the Collaborative Law Movement: A Study in Professional Change,50 ARIZ. L. REV.290,327; Gary L. Voegele et al., Collaborative Law: A Useful Tool for the Family Law Practitioner to Promote Better Outcomes,33 WM. MITCHELL L. REV.971,978; William H. Schwab, Collaborative Lawyering: A Closer Look at an Emerging Practice,4 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J.351.
101参见崔清新：“建议将主持调解纳入律师执业范围”,新华网2009年8月17日：白龙：“最高法副院长：法官律师应同担一份责任、同守一条底线”,《人民日报》,2010年1月27日。
102有关讨论,参见支振锋：“调解能否成为法院化解社会矛盾的法宝”,《中国社会科学报》,2009年12月15日；林白：“《意见》的尴尬困境”,《法制日报》“法学院”专版2009年10月14日；陈虹伟、李娜：“律师借协商性调解机制转型”,《法制日报》,2009年11月13日；陈杨、杜远银：“浅析如何发挥律师在诉讼调解中的作用”,《法制与社会》,2009年第27期,等文章。
103参见常怡主编：《中国调解制度》,重庆：重庆出版社,1990年版,第55-57页。 情况。协议离婚包括协议登记离婚和协议诉讼离婚两种。在国外,依法院诉讼程序的协议离婚包括两种情况,一是经法院批准,二是经法院裁决,而在我国,则是指法院调解离婚。参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第296-298页。
119有学者认为登记离婚多得承认之原因在于离婚原因大多复杂、“清官难断家务事”、“家丑不可外扬”；何况采取登记形式,不仅能以和平方法两愿妥善解决纠纷,避免恶意讼争、对簿公堂之敌对与仇视,而且手续简便、节省费用。离婚后,子女亲权之行使、夫妻财产之清算、离婚损害赔偿与赡养费之请求,均能在国家机关监督下进行,减少无谓纠纷。参见戴炎辉、戴东雄：《亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化有限公司,2004年版,第253、255页。
120两愿合离早在我国汉朝时期即有其例：妻子交付“赎身费”得以合离。参见史尚宽：《亲属法论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000年版,第462页。
121其“民法”第1050条于1985年6月3日修正公布,6月5日开始施行。
122戴炎辉、戴东雄：《中国亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化事业有限公司,2002年版,第299-300页。
123高凤仙：《亲属法：理论与实务》,台湾：五南图书出版有限公司,2008年第八版,第189-190页。
124宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港、澳、台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版,第378页。
125台湾民法新增订第1052条第1款。2009年4月14日三读通过,4月29日公布。
126《澳门民法典》第1628条。
127《澳门民法典》第1630条。
128澳门法中,所谓诉讼离婚,显然是指片意诉讼离婚,不包括合意诉讼离婚。后者依澳门民法典第1629条之规定,归于两愿离婚类型。
129澳门法中,所谓调解,仅指和好、撤诉,换言之,仅指调解和好之结果而非整个纠纷解决过程、程序。《澳门民法典》第1629条第2款等规定可辅证此结论：依该款规定,如调解不成,法官应应尽量促使双方达成离婚之合意,从而将诉讼离婚转为两愿离婚(非讼程序之两愿诉讼离婚和由登记局局长宣布之两愿离婚),调解与转化均不成之后才予以诉讼裁判。而且,正因为如此,在澳门自然也就不存在所谓“法院调解离婚”之情形。
130澳门《民事登记法典》第205条第3款规定：“《民事诉讼法典》第一千二百四十三条至一千二百四十六条之规定,经作出必要配合后,适用于本程序。”
131有观点认为,“澳门登记离婚中的调解制度,一方面要求登记机关不遗余力将婚姻关系还没有彻底破裂的当事人拉回婚姻之中,另一方面对于离意已定的当事人也可以帮助他们达成更趋公平的离婚协议”。参见谭桂珍：“论澳门
134说明,本文中,凡未为特别表明的,子女一词均是指“末成年子女”。
135《联合国儿童权利公约》第12条明确规定：“1.缔约国应确保有主见能力的儿童有权对影响到其本人的一切事项自由发表自己的意见,对儿童的意见应按照其年龄和成熟程度给以适当的看待。2.为此目的,儿童特别应有机会在影响到儿童的任何司法和行政诉讼中,以符合国家法律的诉讼规则的方式,直接或通过代表或适当机构陈述意见。”我国1990年签署加入该公约,其于1992年4月2日对我国生效。
136 See William J. Howe and Hugh Mclsaac, Including Children in Family Law Proceedings-International Perspectives: Finding the Balance: Ethical Challenges and Best Practices for Lawyers Presenting Parents when the Interests of Children as Stake.46 Fam.Ct.Rev.78
137 See Donald T. Saposnek, Working with Children in Mediation, in Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem ed., Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.185-179; Melissa J. Schoffer, Bringing Children to the Mediation Table,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.323.
138在我国,曾经有一个时期,离异父母(通常是带着孩子的父亲)再婚比较困难,子女被认为是“拖油瓶”。有部记不清名字的此题材电影中,幼小的女孩将爸爸每次相亲失败的原因归结于自己的存在,每次在父亲与女方见面时就“自觉”地出外流浪。电影《小花》中,养母再怎么伤害她,她始终渴望养母的接受,一次又一次的坚持。这些真切地表明子女意愿的脆弱与敏感,子女需要的特殊性。
139 See Karen K. Irvin, Including Children in Mediation: Considerations for the Mediator, in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.94-107.
140不同家事调解模式对于子女在调解中的角色定位,参见附录1、2表格内容。
145子女参与调解背后的文化因素的考量,可参见Donald T. Saposnek, The Value of Children in Mediation: A Cross-cultural Perspective, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4, summer 1994, pp.325-342.
148宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第181-182页。
156 Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces: A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2, p.68.
157例如1925年《幼年子女法》的颁布宣告母亲对子女监护与父亲享有同等的权利,随后的“母亲优先”(maternal preference presumption)推定原则、“幼年”推定原则(tender years presumption)则使得母亲逐渐占据主导地位,直到1970年美国加尼弗尼亚州《1970年家事法法令》实行性别中立立场时才得以取消。。还有其他一些主要原则,例如主要照料者推定原则、维持现状原则等等。具体可参见夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第283-286页；Sophy Bordow, Defended Custody Cases in the Family Court of Australia: Factors Influencing the Outcome,(1994) Australian Journal of Family Law 252
158参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第479-480页：朱凡：“现代监护法发展趋势及热点问题比较研究”,《重庆大学学报》(社科版),2004年第3期,等。
159关于父母行为对监护、探望判决的影响,可参见夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第286-288、第300-301页。
160 See Robin Drapkin, and Florence Bienenfeld, "The Power of Including Children in Custody Mediation", in Craig A. Everett (Ed.), divorce mediation:perspectives on the field, The Waworth Press, Inc.1985, pp.63-65.
161 See Ernest A. Sanchez & Sherrie Kibler-Sanchez, Empowering Children in Mediation,42(3) Fam. Ct. Rev.554-57, (2004).
162 See Judge Leonard Edwards(ret), Comments on the Miller Commission Report: A California Perspective, Pace Law Review, Vol.27, pp.657-658.
163 See Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation, London:Sweet& Maxwell,1997, pp.68-70.
164 Id,p.70.
165其具体如下：加尼弗尼亚州、特拉华州、弗罗里达州、夏威夷州、爱达荷州、肯塔基州、内华达州、南达科他州、犹他州、威斯康辛州、亚利桑那州(专门子女监护)、缅因州(专门子女监护)、北卡罗来纳州(专门子女监护)以及宾夕法尼亚州(部分地区)、华盛顿州(部分地区)。See Carrie-Anne Tondo et al., Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV.431,445(2001).
166 See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.325-326.
167 See Joan B. Kelly, Psychological and Legal Interventions for Parents and Children in Custody and Access Disputes: Current Research and Practice,10 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L.129, p.137 (2002).
168例如在北美,随着20世纪末兴起的“祖父母权利”运动,理论中开始对祖父母探望孙子女纠纷提供家事调解相关事宜进行探讨。See Edwad Kruk, Grandparent Visitation Disputes: Multigenerational Approaches to Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.l,1994, pp.37-53.
169家庭关系中心具体情况可参见Partick Parkison, Keeping in contact: the role of family relationship centres in Australia, Child and Family LawQuarterly, Vol.18, No.2,2006, pp.157-174;陈苇、胡苷用：“离婚诉讼前处理子女抚养纠纷的一种新机制——澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’评介及其启示”,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,2007年第4期。
170澳大利亚以子女为中心、子女参与型调解具体情况可参见如下一系列文章：Mclntosh, Jennifer E, Wells,Yvonne D; Long, Caroline M, Child-focused and Child-inclusive Family Law Dispute Resolution: One Year Findings from a Prospective Study of Outcomes, Journal of Family Studies, May/Jun 2007, Vol.13, Issue 1, pp 8-25; Boyhan, Patricia A; Gemer, Francesca J T, "Doing What It Takes": A Family Dispute Resolution Case Study Using a Multidisciplinary Approach, Journal of Family Studies, Nov.2007, Vol.13, Issue 2, pp 236-244;Hewlett, Bill, Accessing the Parental Ming Through the Heart: A Case Study in Child Inclusive Mediation, Journal of Family Studies, May/Jun 2007, Vol.13, Issue 1, pp 94-103; Moloney, Banu, Sharing the Parenting after Separating: A 10-year-old'S Tips for Dealing with Differences, Journal of Family Studies, 12(2), pp 277-280; Moloney, Lawrie, Child-sensitive Practices in High-conflict Parenting Disputes:A 30 Year Road to Serious Reform, Journal of Family Studies,12(1),pp 37-56, etc.
171 See Patti Bertschler, and Thomas O'Reilly, Elder Mediation:Finding Family Balance when Caregiver Roles Reverse, First published in the Akron Life & Leisure Magazine, view this article at: http://www.ncsmediation.com/articles/elder_medi-iation.html/2009-11-12.
172 Arline Kardasis and Blair Trippe, Elder and Family Mediation Services, at: http://www.longtermcarelink.net/elder care/-elder mediation.htm/2009-11-11.
173相关著述、国际性、地区性研讨会不断增多。著作方面,比较有代表性的有：Patti Bertschler and Laurette Cocklin, TRUCE! Using Elder Mediation to Resolve Conflict among Families, Seniors and Organizations, NCS Publishing,2004; John Bertschler and Patti Bertschler, Elder Mediation: A New Solution to Age-Old Problems, NCS Publishing,2009.
174法案于2007年通过,但具体施行由后续法规决定(第112条)。该省相关机关正就相关法规向社会征集意见。See http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/current_Consultations.htm.
Elder and Guardianship Mediation project of Canadian Centre for Elder Law, at: http://www.bcli.org/ccel/projects/elder-and-guardianship-mediation#tabs-projects-1/2009-11-12.
176 See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.399-401.
177 See National Care Planning Council,2008, S. Oliver,2008.
178 Anthony J. Serra, Esq., Using Elder Mediation in Adult Guardianship Cases: A New Approach for the Court Appointed Attorney, at: http://www.eldermediationcenter.com/pg10.cfm/2009-11-12. 179 Fiske, J.A. Marital Mediation as Another Helpful Path. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,1997, December 8. 180 Laurie Israel, Mediation to Stay Married- A Technique with Promise,2007; Laurie Israel, FAQs About Me Stay Married,2007; Laurie Israel, Governor Sanford - Give Marital Mediation a Try!,2009; John Fiske, Marital Mediation for Family Mediators,2009, view all these articles at: www.mediate.com.
181对此,有文章十分形象地使用了“突然有一天醍醐灌顶般地领悟到帮助当事人维持婚姻关系的重要性”表述。See Susan K. Boardman, John Fiske, Laurie Israel, and Ken Neumann, Marital Mediation:An Emerging Area of Practice, May 2009, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/maritalmediationl.cfm/2009-12-11。
183日常生活司空见惯的多是不少配偶,特别是年轻一代,常因琐碎事情争吵,互不妥协,继而将矛盾上升到人品、感情的高度,冲动之下即主张离婚,事后冷静思考,倍觉后悔,但出于“面子”观念,双方均不愿率先承认错误或者是采取道歉等弥补关系裂痕之行为；也有一些离婚是由于对方性格差异(或者一方或双方存在一些性格瑕疵),不能彼此包容、体谅或是自省、改正,久而久之,在争吵和僵持中失去耐性：还有一些婚姻是存在误解、不满却很少交流、沟通：还有的是夫妻一方或双方与其他家庭成员(如婆媳之间)产生矛盾,在无法调和情况下,夫妻关系很容易成为漩涡或说是症结的中心,前者难以解决,后者倒是容易处理,一刀下去,劳燕分飞。总之,婚姻关系危机可能是是一方、双方或者家庭以及社会因素(比如说第三者插足或是插手、实行情感利益双重引诱等等所造成。
184关于当前离婚,夏吟兰老师将其总结为八个字“自由有余、限制不足”。其具体论述,详见夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版,第46-47页等。
185 Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002, p.106.
186 Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2, p.136.
187 Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2, pp.133-141.
188 Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties' Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.211-214.
189需要说明的是,此处东方传统,主要是从调解文化角度而论,是指受儒家文化影响之“东方国家”及其调解传统。
190参见[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第52-69页。本部分论述均以其为参照。
191参见张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论从》(第7卷),北京：法律出版社,1997年版,第150-154页。我们认为,与其说该论述完全适用离婚等家事纠纷解决,还不如说其因较为全面、准确地分析和把握了以家事(民间)纠纷为主要对象的东方传统调解的基本内涵与主要特征而成为我们必须予以关注的内容。相比于探讨家事纠纷特殊性、家事纠纷解决特别程序的西方现代家事调解而言,该理论的家事属性显然并不直接,也不突出。
192棚濑孝雄先生认为,教化型的概念是亨得逊通过对日本江户时期的审判进行分析后提出来的。参见Dan Henderson, Conciliation and Japanese Law: Tokugawa and Modern (University of Washington Pres,1965),转引自[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠 纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第64页。事实上,此概念的明确提出或许是始于亨得逊,但教化这一特征显然是中国传统伦理法(包括民间调解)的基本内涵,或者说是深受儒家文化影响的整个东亚共同的因子,对此容后细述。
193正是这一点使得调解在西方发展之初饱受指责。不少学者认为其非正式性难以保障公正、可能破坏法制统一,因而强烈反对。众所周知,在中国,随着改革开放,调解发展进程中同样遭遇此等待遇。法制、司法的片面强调使得调解的性质定位模糊,实践中的功能也因而大打折扣。
194需要指出的是：通过与美国之比较,作者本人倾向于将“增强当事人自主决策”作为调解发展的“长期性展望”。参见[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第51-52页。
196中国司法调解发展例外,我们认为,其实质上是对法律的界定存在特殊性。对此,中国调解部分再述。
197西方ADR之A存在不同解释：替代、可选择,适当的,等等。澳大利亚家庭法令中,调解名称之变化更是典型：其最初称为ADR,后改为PDR,取“主要、基本”之意,再后来仍觉不妥,于是去掉前缀,直接称为DR。由此可见一斑。
198 S Robert, "Three models of family mediation", in R Dingwall and Eekelaar (eds), Divorce Mediation and the Legal Process,1988, p.144.
199此分类有三模式说：结构型、治疗型与劳务管理型,参见Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.49-63;也有在前三的基础上加上信息与沟通型,并称四模式,参见Andrew 1. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation:Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.211-227; Beck, C. J. A.& Sales, B. D. Family mediation:Facts, myths and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,2001, p.9-11.
200 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.104-145.
201 Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem (ed.), Divorce and Family Mediation:Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.29-128; Laurence Boulle. Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition). LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia,2005, p.43-47.
202莫顿·多伊奇主张冲突可通过制度性讨论(如集体谈判、司法制度)、专业人士(如调解员、法官)、社会准则(公平、正义等)、谈判规则(谈判之起合、日程表等)以及特定程序设计(沟通、会见等)等社会结构性因素予以限制和掌控。冲突解决应具备若干前提,如当事人自愿参与、承诺遵守规则并接受由此产生之结果。See Morton Deutsch. Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press,1973, pp.372-395.203家事调解协会面向律师和高级心理健康专业人士之调解培训包括两部分：(1)5-7天的密集培训,内容包括调解基础理论(冲突理论等)、结构型调解流程与技能、实务探讨等模块；(2)250小时的督导实习。
204 Coogler O.J. Structured Mediation in Divorce Settlement: A Handbook for Marital Mediators. Lexington, Mass.:D.C. Heath.1978.
205该手册为突出实用性,删减了大部分理论论述。因作者1982年即去世,故该模式之基础理论由其弟子Sarah ChildsGrebe等人具体阐述与完善。详见Sarah Childs Grebe. "Building on structures mediation:An integrated model for global mediation of separation and divorce". Mediation Quarterly,1994, Vol.12, No.1, p.15.
206 Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.49-50.
207 See: Marital mediation rules of FMA. In Joan Blades, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,1985, pp.136-143.
208法律建议之举措在结构型调解实施之初曾一度受指责,因为其对律师为双方代理人提供法律服务之角色定位对传统律师角色形成挑战,后来,随着律师角色多样化以及家事调解的“司法化”,该制度才逐渐得到获得认同。See: Sarah Childs Grebe, "Structured mediation and its variants: What makes it unique?" In J. Folberg & A. Milne (eds.), Divorce Mediation: Theory and Practice. New York: Guilford Press,1988.
209 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.119.
210美国著名家事调解专家(1932-1999),Haynes调解培训学院主席、家事调解员学会(Academy of family mediators)创始人兼首任主席。其主要著作有Divorce Mediation: A practical guide for therapist and counselors, (New York: Spring, 1981)、Mediating Divorce: A casebook of I successful for family negotiations (San Francisco:Jossey Boss,1989)、The Fundamental of Family Mediation (State University of New York Press,1994)等。
211 Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation:Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, p.216.
212 Vanderkooi, L., & Pearson, J. Mediating divorce disputes: Mediator behaviors, styles and rules, Family Relations, Vol.32, No.4,1983,pp.577-566.
213 Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA:Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.57.
214存在家庭暴力情形时,家事纠纷是否能够调解一直是理论争议的焦点,在美国各州立法对此规定也不一。即使可以调解,应采取何种形式,仍然存在诸多不同意见。对此,详见相关章节论述。
215 Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces: A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2, p.69
216 Haynes J.M., The Fundamental of Family Mediation, New York: State University of New York Press,1994, pp.61-63.
217[英]迈克尔·努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨丽华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版,第9页。
218 Hanson James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.50-51.
219有的坚持始终让子女参与,有的持反对意见,还有的认为应具体判断。详见Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.217.
220[加]岳云(Howard H. Irving)编著：《家事调解：适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第90页。
22’有的认为,还包括策略、结构功能模式等分支形态,详见Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2002, p.126-127.
222 Howard H. Irving博士,中文名岳云,加拿大多伦多法学工作学院兼法学院教授,著名的实务治疗家和家事调解员,治疗型家事调解模式的先驱,加拿大家事调解委员会发起人、前主席。
223 Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Services to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2, pp.115-116.
224参见Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation: Contemporary Issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995.pp.151-152其另一种说法是五阶段,即调解评估、调解准备、谈判、终止和跟进。See Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Helping Families Resolve Conflict, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,2002, pp.36-40。
225调解员此时应主要扮演三个角色：程序之协调者、问题解决之建议者、当事人状况之评估与干预者。倘若干预失败,其通常表明是评估失误,因此可返回调节准备阶段。Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Services to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 124-125.
226 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.124.当然也有观点认为治疗性调解适用于大多数一般家事纠纷。Beth M. Erickson, Therapeutic Mediation:A Saner Way of Disputing, Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,1997, Vol.14, p.261.
227 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.128.
228 See Michael Benjamin and Howard H. Irving, Toward a Feminist-informed Model of Therapeutic Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly,1992, Vol.10, No.2, pp.129-152.
229 Marsha Kilne Pruett and Janet R. Johnston, "Therapeutic Mediation with High-conflict Parents: Effective Models and Strategies", In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.93.
230 Robert E. Emery, David Sbarra and Tara Grover, Divorce Mediation:Research and Reflection,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.22; Robert A. Hahn and David M. Kleist, Divorce Mediation:Research and Reflection for Family and Couples Counselling, The Family Journal,2000, Vol.8, No.2, pp.165-171; Kelly, J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and Conciliation Courts Review,1996, Vol.34, pp.373-385.
231 See Johnston J. and Roseby,In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997; Johnston J. and Campbell L. Impasse of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Conflict, New York: Simon and Schuster,1988.
232 Johnston J. and Roseby,In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997, p.238.
233 See: Black, M., and Joffee W., A Lawyer/Therapist Team Approach to Divorce, Conciliation and Courts Review, 1978, Vol.16, No.l, pp.1-5; Joseph L. Steinberg, Towards an Interdisciplinary Commitment: A Divorce Lawyer Pro poses Attorney-Therapist Marriages or, at the Least, an Affair, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 6 Is sue 3, pp.259-268; Jan Mark Dudman, Co-Mediation with Attorney and Marriage Family Therapist, at: http://www.d ivorcenet.com/states/california/comediation with attorney and family therapist/2009-12-12.
234拍有观点形象地将此分类、这些名称比喻为“标签(1abels)”,总结自身工作与特点,区别其他类型的一个标志。参见Bernard Mayer, Facilitative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.29.
235该术语由Leonard Riskin最先明确提出。其后Lesson和Johnston、Phillips以及Zumeta等对促成型调解予以各自不同的界定。See Leonard Riskin, Mediator Orientations, Strategies, Techniques, Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 1994, Vol.12,No.9, pp.111-114; Lesson and Johnston, Ending it: Dispute Resolution in America: Description, Examples, Cases, and Questions, Cincinnati, OH:Anderson,1998, pp.133-134; Phillips, B. A. The Mediation Field Guide: Transcending Litigation and Resolving Conflicts in Your Business or Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2001, p.170; Zena Zumeta, Styles of Mediation:Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/zumeta.cfm/2009-10-10.
236 See Bernard Mayer, Facilitative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.32-33.
237范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第100页。
238促成型调解是典型的程序性调解模式,其并不关注的案件实质性内容,也不对案件利弊发表具体意见。尽管其也提供批评性分析,也采取一些策略鼓励当事人和解。转化型调解则更是严格以当事人自主决策为中心,严重遵循中立性。 See Bush and Folger, The Promise of mediation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1994, p.81.
239 Riskin, L. L. Understanding Mediators'Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed. Harford Negotiation Law Review, Vol.1, pp.7-51; L. Randolph Lowery, Evaluative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.80-84.
240 See Alfini, J. J., and Glay, G. S. Should Lawyer Mediators Be Prohibited from Providing Legal Advice or Evaluations? Dispute Resolution Magazine,1994, Vol.1, pp.8-9; Love, L.P. The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should not Evaluate, Florida State University Law Review,1997, Vol.24, pp.937-948, etc.
241关于其不足或“危险性”可参见L. Randolph Lowery, Evaluative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.74-76.
242认为其给予调解员太多权力干涉、施压或者操弄过程,不仅“剥夺了当事人相互面对、通过自己的努力寻求纠纷解决的道德自治的机会”,面且由此达成的结果的持久性也很值得怀疑。当然,该观点也强烈反对那种由调解员指导当事人形成解决方案的指导性调解,强调发挥当事人自主性的作用,认为应避免调解员介入当事人对厉害价值以及解决问题方案的思考。参见范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第100页。
243该观点认为：纠纷解决的关键是人(纠纷当事人)而非问题(争执及相关事宜)；调解应以转化当事人为重心(积极促使其转变消极认识与态度),而不是以问题解决为目标、以程序为中心。See R Baruch Bush and J Folger, The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Ball,1994.244许多调解员认同该模式之理念,原因在于：(1)传统调解模式不仅功能上存在诸多不足,而且适用范围有限。更为关键的是,其并不能解释不能适用的原因。(2)经验表明,当事人的态度才是问题解决的前提和关键。See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.131-132.
245 Robert A Baruch Bush and Sally Ganong Pope, Changing the Quality of Conflict Interaction:The Principles and Practice of Transformative Mediation, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal,2002, Vol.3:67.
246冲突转化理论认为,冲突通常导致冲突者产生虚弱感(sense of weakness,如失控感、精神混乱、怀疑、犹豫不决等)并因此“以自我为中心”(self-absorption,如过于敏感、超强自我保护意识、多疑、对对方观点抱通常敌对、专横)。因此,必须逆转这一下旋局面,使其由弱变强(strong)、从自我为中心转变为积极与他人联络、沟通、回应成为“再认”。帮助当事人实现这种转化即转化型调解所追求的主要目标。See Bush, R. A. B. What do We Need a (responsive)。冲突转化理论中,外界干预、帮助使其由弱到强的转化称为“增权”,从自我中心到积极回应的转化Mediator? Mediation's Value-added for Negotiation. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol.12, pp.1-36; Bech, A. T. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence, New York: HarperCollins,1999; Goleman, D.
Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury,1995; Della Noce, D. J. Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in
Mediation, Negotiation Journal,1999, Vol.15, No.3, pp.271-301. 247 See M Dewdney, Transformative Mediation: Implications for Practitioners,2001,12 ADRJ 20.
248该模式目前仅有一些概念或观点性的程序操作指引,例如Folger和Bush提出的“当事人自主决策”、“面谈互动”等概念,详见Folger J.& Bush. R. Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice, Mediation Quarterly,1995, Vol.13, No.2, pp.263-278.
249叙事疗法由澳大利亚的Michael White和新西兰的David Epston等人于20世纪70、80年代首创, 并发起影响深远的“叙事”运动。例如其主张“问题的外化”：人一旦与问题清楚分开,即能观察问题与人的互动,究竟是谁对谁的影响更大：人的生活就是展现其真实生活经验的故事,一旦两者不一致,必然会产生问题。因而重述便成为问题解
决的关键、治疗的主角。参见Michael White and David Epston, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, New York: W. W. Norton & Company,1990; White, M. Maps of narrative practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,2007。
250 See: John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,2000; John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Practicing Narrative Mediation: Loosening the Grip of Conflict, CA: Jossey-Bass,2008, etc.
251 Toran Hansen, The Narrative Approach to Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansenT/2009-10-12. theoretical shifts and practical demands,[19951 WkoLRev 5.
252 John Winslade and Richard Cohen, Narrative Mediation:Waikato mediation service's answer to community concerns,
253也有点观点认为这种模式实际上抛弃了一般调解所要求的中立性。See J Millen and S Cobb, "Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality", (1991) 9 Mediation Quarterly 151.
254 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.137.
255依迈克尔·努尼的说法,“调解是利益导向性、问题解决导向性的,从而避免了身份导向性的谈判。”参见[英]迈克尔·努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,法律出版社,2006年版,第7页。
256不以和好为目标并非是说其不鼓励和好,调解程序设置之本身客观上就给了纠纷当事人一个和好的机会。换言之,为当事人创造和好机会是任何家事调解模式的基本目标之一。参见Howard H. Irving, Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation:Helping families resolve conflict,2002, p.17。其只是让当事人自行和好,而不是劝说、强迫当事人接受这一结果,后果显然有违背形式公正、中立以及当事人自主决策之嫌。
257调解中,谈判通常都是建立在如下假设前提基础之上：纠纷当事人能够理性思考与行为：其对纷争事项清楚了解：对“理想”结果有较好的认识；明确自己的立场。Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation: Contemporary issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995, pp.165.
258此处之“域外”,是指中国大陆法域之外。而且,其不仅包括外国,也包括我国其他三法域(港澳台地区)。
259 See Joan Blade, Family Mediation:Cooperative Divorce Settlement, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1985, pp.32-33.
260 See Hanson, James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.4-5.
261 See Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel & Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431.
262 See ALA. CODE § 6-6-20; Mediation Rule 4, 11 and 15.
263 See CAL. FAM. CODE § 3170-3181; CAL. APP SUPP. R.7.land R.10.84.
264法条内容,参见陈苇主编：《加拿大家庭法汇编》,北京：群众出版社,2006年版,第50-51、150-151页等。
265参见魁北克《民事诉法典》第814.3-814.14条、第815.2-815.5条、第827.2-827.3条、第973条之规定。
268 See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "The Family Justice Project- A Project to Develop Comparative Proposals for the Reform of the Family Justice Services in British Columbia" (1994); "Family Justice Reform Pilot Project Evaluation" (1995).
269需要说明的是,在美国与加拿大等英美法系国家,家事不仅包括私法纠纷还包括一些公法纠纷,例如政府儿童保护部门在涉及子女被虐待、忽视时依职权介入,对子女安全与利益予以保护。此种纠纷亦可适用调解,即子女福利调解或者子女保护调解。其调解类似于家事调解,但调解员需经特殊训练、以子女利益保护为首要目标、调解主体多元化,不仅是子女父母(监护人)以及政府委任指导员(通常为社会工作者,协议应经其同意),满一定年龄的子女、咨询员以及顾问亦可参与调解。该调解在加拿大十分兴盛,各省不仅建立专门的子女保护调解员名册,面且对该调解予以法律援助支持。See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "Child Protection Mediation in British Columbia", March 2009; Linda Crush, When Mediation Fails Child Protection:Lessons for the Future,23 Can. J. Fam. L.5, 2007. etc.
270 See Alberta Law Reform Institute, Court-connected Family Mediation Programs in Canada, Rresearch paper No.20, May 1994.
271 See Bill 65, an act to institute, under the code of civil procedure, pre-hearing mediation in family law cases and to other provisions of the code, Cited from Sandra A. Goundry et al, Family Mediation in Canada: Implications for Women's Equality, p.29, available at: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/.
272有关“调解通知”的具体内容,参见卑诗省依据《法律与衡平法令》(Law and Equity Act)制定的《(家事)调解通知条例》(Notice to mediate (family) Regulation, B.C.Reg.296/2007)。
273 See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "Evaluation of the Family Mediation Practicum Project", June 2005.
274欧洲家事调解兴起之社会背景,可参见Janet Walker, Introduction to Family Mediation in Europe and its Special Characteristics and Advantages, Report article for the 4th European Conference on Family Law, October 1998.
275关于欧洲家事法现代化中当事人自主决策权的地位(the role of self-determination in the modernization of family law in Europe) I司题,国际家庭法协会2003年欧洲地区性会议曾专门以议题予以探讨,并在2006年出版专题论文集。
276 See Miquel Martin Casals, Divorce Mediation in Europe: An Introductory Outline, Electronic journal of Comparative Law, Vol.9, No.2,2005.
279 See Council of Europe, Concept Paper of the 7th European Conference on Family Law on International Family Mediation, CONF-FL (2009)1.
280需要说明的是,因苏格兰、北爱尔兰家事法制的特殊性,本文所称英国,主要是指英格兰与威尔士地区。
281 See Janet A. Walker, Family Mediation in England: Strategies for Gaining Acceptance, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4, 1991 pp.254-255.
285 Marian Roberts, Family Mediation:The Development of the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.22, No.4,2005, p.516.
286 See Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce-The Government's Proposals, Command Paper,2799, 1995.
287英国《1996年家庭法法令》第8、13、14条关于离婚与分居纠纷调解之规定、第26-29条关于家事案件申请法律援助的强制调解规定,参见蒋月等译：《英国婚姻家庭制定法选集》,北京：法律出版社2008年版,第233-234、236-237、140-242页。
See Gwynn Davis et al., Monitoring Publicly Funded Family Mediation, London, Fam Law 29 (625).
291 See Jane Robey, Family Mediation: The Future and NFM, [2009] Fam Law 747; Nigel Fricher QC, Mediation-The Way Forward, Fam Law 29 (826).
292[英]凯特斯丹德利：《家庭法》,屈广清译,北京：中国政法大学出社,2004年版,第12页。
293 Elizabeth Walsh, Publicly Funded Family Mediation: the Way Forward, [2008] Fam Law 1144.
294 See Lisa Parkinson, Developing International Family Mediation and Harmonizing Standards, CONF-FL-SP (2009) 2 E.
295早期法国家事调解组织的发展情况,参见Benoit Bastard and Laura Cardia-voneche, Family Mediation in France, International Journal of Law and the Family, Vol.7, No.3, pp.271-281.
296 See Nathalie Riomet, The State of Affairs of Mediation in Europe: What can Governments Do (More)? The French Approach:Legal and Practical Aspects, Article for Programme International Expert Meeting, June 2006.
297 See Elisa Guiraud Terrier, Challengea of Training in International Family Mediation in the Light of Experience of the "DIPLOME D'ETAT" in International Family Mediation, CONF-FL-SP (2009) 13 E.
298 See Deborah Macfarlane, Family Mediation in France, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.10, No.3,2004, p.97.
302家事法院促进和解的义务、婚姻咨询服务以及相关人员(包括律师等法律工作者)非讼服务信息告知义务等至今仍然是1975年家庭法的重要内容,如第10B-10E条对家事咨询之规定、第3A章关于非讼服务信息告知之规定、第3B章关于法院促进和解、鼓励和指示当事人参与非讼纠纷解决项目之规定等,其具体内容可参见陈苇等译：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社,2009年版,第53-72页。
303卫洁：“澳大利亚家庭法的家事调解制度对我国的启示”,《山西农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2007年第2期,第207页。
304澳大利亚家事调解员等家事纠纷从业人员的资质认证、条件以及登记等,详见《1984年家庭法条例》第4A章“认证规则”之具体规定。
309参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第14条第2款、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第171条之规定。
310参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第19条之规定。
311新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第14条第1款、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第172条第1款均明确规定,调解会议应由家事法院法官主持；《1980年家事程序法》第16条、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第177条均规定,主持调解的法官有权参与任何随后产生之诉讼程序,除非法官,主动或依当事人中请,觉得其不适宜继续参与随后审理或者当事人有充分理由表明应有其他法官审理。
312参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第15、17条之规定。
313也有文章认为“调解会议不是诉讼程序”,“如果调解不成,该法官也不得充任审判官”显然与法律规定不符。参见张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,载《法学研究》第19卷第3期：张晓茹：“家事裁判制度研究”,中国政法大学博士论文,第67页。
314依2005年7月1日开始实施之((2004年子女照料法》之规定,现已改为日常照料
315参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第13条之规定。
316参见新西兰《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第170条之规定。
338日本学者不同观点以及各派观点主要代表人物,参见邓学仁、严祖照、高一书：((DNA鉴定——亲子关系争端之解决》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年版,第114-116页。
339[日]小岛武司：“家事法院的诉讼法意义”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版,第243页。
340有学者专门对中日家事调停进行了比较,认为两国相关制度存在如下不同：一是调解的“相位”不同：日本采取的是家事调解前置,而我国则是诉讼调解：二是调解的构架不同,例如日本仅有裁判所的调停,而我国既有诉讼外调解,也有诉讼调解：日本有家事法院并配备有专业的调查官和心理专家等,裁判与调查相结合,而我国家事调解在人员、程序的专业性上尚待提高：日本家事调停的实施者是民间的调停委员和家庭裁判所的裁判官,而我国诉讼外调解与诉讼调解各自独立运行；等等；三是调解判断的基准不同,日本调解以条理为主要判断基准,其是社会生活的根本理念,“公序良俗”、信义诚实的原则是“条理”的表现形式,其适用必须以实体法为指导。作为调停规范的条理,只要不违反法律强制性的规定,可以排除任意法规的约束：而中国情理法相结合,通过道德解释法律,并起到宣传、教育的作用。参见李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期,第87-88页。
341此部分内容,参阅了关伟康：“香港家庭调解简史”,[加]岳云(Howard H. Irving)编著：《家庭调解—适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第37-54页。
356具体内容,可参见台湾地区2008年3月27日施行之“地方法院办理家事调解事件实施要点”。
357参见宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港澳台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版,第368页。
382参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版,第417-424页。
383有学者将20世纪80年代婚姻家庭案件新情况总结为如下六点：离婚案件逐年上升；草率离婚与第三者介入引发离婚案件增多；“高价离婚”(暴发户另结新欢,以钱买同意)现象凸显；出国热引发离婚纠纷多；中老年人离婚案件增多；离婚案件中子女抚养与财产分割情况愈加复杂。参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的审判工作》(下),北京：当代中国出版社,1993年版,第40-43页。
384参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版,第439页。
385参见高洪宾：《民事调解的理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版,第45-46页。
390高洪宾：《民事调解理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版,第82页。
406就笔者所搜集资料,有关离婚调解或婚姻家庭纠纷调解的论述主要有如下：如夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版；“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”课题组(夏吟兰主持)：“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”,中国法学会婚姻家庭法学会研究会2009年年会论文：蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版,第344-345页；.蒋月：“构建婚姻家庭诉讼司法调解制度”,《甘肃社会科学》,2008年第1期：第37-40页：张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第7卷,第166-167页：陈爱武：“家事调解：比较借鉴与制度重构”,《法学》2007年第6期,第137-138页；陈群峰：《离婚利益协调机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版,第116-129页,等。
413此表内容摘自Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties' Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.224-225.
414此表内容摘自Laurence Boulle, Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition), Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths,2005, p.44.
415此表主要由Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel & Bethany Drucker "Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States" (39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431)文统计表格及其内容整理而成。
[1]范愉主编：《ADR原理与实务》,厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002年版。
[2]陈苇：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社,2009年版。
[3][加]岳云编著：《家庭调解——适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽、王振福、袁菊花译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版。
[4]宋朝武：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版。
[5]江伟主编：《民事诉讼法学原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999年版。
[6]辛国清：《法院附设替代性纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008年版。
[7]王亚新：《社会变革中的民事诉讼法》,北京：中国法制出版社,2001年版。
[8]陈群峰：《离婚利益协调机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版。
[9][美]斯蒂芬B戈尔德堡等：《纠纷解决——谈判、调解和其他机制》,蔡彦敏等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
[10][英]迈克尔努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版。
[11]常怡主编：《中国调解制度》,重庆：重庆出版社,1990年版。
[12]余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版。
[13]杨大文主编：《亲属法》,北京：法律出版社,2004年版。
[14]陈苇主编：《外国婚姻家庭法比较研究》,北京：群众出版社2006年版。
[15]陈苇：《中国婚姻家庭法立法研究》(第二版),北京：群众出版社,2010年版
[16]夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
[17]戴炎辉、戴东雄：《亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化有限公司,2004年版。
[18]史尚宽：《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
[19]戴炎辉、戴东雄：《中国亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化事业有限公司,2002年版。
[20]高凤仙：《亲属法：理论与实务》,台湾：五南图书出版有限公司,2008年第八版。
[21]宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港、澳、台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版。
[22]杨润时主编：《最高人民法院民事调解工作司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版 社,2004年版。
[23]范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版。
[24]高凤仙：《家庭暴力防治法规专论》,台湾：五南图书出版社有限公司,1998年版。
[25][美]博西格诺等：《法律之门》,邓子滨译,北京：华夏出版社2002年版。
[26]黄松有主编：《婚姻法司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版。
[27]黄松有主编：《最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2004年版。
[28]万鄂湘主编：《婚姻法理论与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版
[29]杨大文、龙翼飞主编：《婚姻家庭法学》,北京：中国人民大学出版社2006年版。
[30]陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[31][德]奥特马·尧厄尼希：《民事诉讼法》,周翠译,北京：法律出版社2003年版。
[32]王洪：《从身份到契约》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版。
[33]蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版。
[34]邓学仁：《DNA鉴定—亲子关系争端之解决》(2007年修订版),台北：元照出版有限公司,2006年第二版。
[35][英]伯特兰·罗素：《婚姻革命》,靳建国译,北京：东方出版社,1988年版。
[36][日]利谷信义：《离婚法学会学》,陈明侠、许继华译,北京：北京大学出版社,1991年版。
[37][加]罗德里克·菲利普斯：《分道扬镳—离婚简史》,李公昭译,北京：中国对外翻译出版有限公司,1998年版。
[38]夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。
[39][日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年。
[40]陈苇主编：《加拿大家庭法汇编》,北京：群众出版社,2006年版。
[41]蒋月等：《英国婚姻家庭制定法选集》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[42][日]川岛武宜：《现代化与法》,王志安等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
[43]邓学仁、严祖照、高一书：《DNA鉴定——亲子关系争端之解决》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年版。
[44]赵文宗等：《中国内地、香港婚姻法实务》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版。
[45]邓丽：《婚姻法中的个人自由与社会正义——以婚姻契约论为中心》,北京：知识产权出版社,2008年版。
[46][美]黄宗智：《清代的法律、社会与文化：民法的表达与实践》,上海：上海书店出版社,2001年版。
[47][美]吉尔伯特罗兹曼主编：《中国的现代化》,国家社会科学基金“比较现代化”课题组译, 江苏人民出版社,1988年版。
[48]闫庆霞：《法院调解制度研究》,北京：中国公安大学出版社,2008年版。
[49][美]黄宗智：《过去和现在：中国民事法律实践的探索》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版。
[50]董磊明：《宋村的调解：巨变时代的权威与秩序》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[51]《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版。
[52]《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的审判工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1993年版。
[53]刘世杰、刘亚林：《离婚审判研究》,重庆：重庆大学出版社,1998年版。
[54]高洪宾：《民事调解的理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版。
[55]蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版。
[56]孔祥瑞、李黎主编：《民法典亲属编立法若干问题研究》,北京：中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[57][日]高见泽磨：《现代中国的纠纷与法》,何勤华等译,北京：法律出版社,2003年版。
[58]陈棋炎：《亲属、继承法基本问题》,台北：台湾三民书局,1980年版。
[59][美]凯特·斯丹得利：《家庭法》,屈广清译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
[1]宋明志：“论法院调解的强制性”,《政法论丛》,2008年第1期。
[2]周永坤：“论强制性调解对法治和公平的冲击”,《法律科学》,2007年第3期。
[3]高玮玮：“强制离婚调解制度的评析与走向”,《律师世界》,2000年第8期。
[4]陈弘毅：“调解、诉讼与公正——对现代自由社会和儒家传统的反思”,《现代法学》,2001年第3期。
[5]王亚新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期。
[6]季卫东：“调解与法制的悖论”,《法学研究》,1989年第5期。
[7]江伟、李浩：“市场经济与法院调解制度的完善”,《中国人民大学学报》,1995年第3期。
[8]李浩：“论调解不宜作为民事审判权的运作方式”,《法律科学》,1996年第4期。
[9]李浩：“民事审判中的调审分离”,《法学研究》,第18卷第4期。
[10]张晋红：“法院调解的立法价值探究——简评法院调解的两种改良观点”,《法学研究》,1998年第5期。
[11]陈杨、杜远银：“浅析如何发挥律师在诉讼调解中的作用”,《法制与社会》,2009年第27期。
[12]李学经：“家事审判程序研究”,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
[13]吴志刚：“家事纠纷的特征性及其调解机制的构建”,《青岛农业大学学报》(社会科学版),2008年第3期。
[14][日]我妻荣：“家事调停论”[家族法的诸问题],穗积先生追悼会论文集,有斐阁,昭和2 7年版。转引自李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期。
[15]张晓茹：“家事裁判制度”,中国政法大学博士学位论文,2004年。
[16]尹绪洲：“家事审判制度研究”,河南大学硕士学位论文,2001年。
[17]陈爱武：“人事诉讼程序初论”,南京师范大学年硕士学位论文,2002年。
[18]蔡理亮：“建构我国家事审判程序之设想”,郑州大学年硕士学位论文,2004年。
[19]李永燕：“家事法院研究”,南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
[20]巫若枝：“三十年来中国婚姻法‘回归民法’的反思—兼论保持与发展婚姻法独立部门法传统”,《法制与社会发展》,2009年第4期。
[21]巫若枝：“论婚姻家庭法在法律体系中定位的历史变迁”,《廊坊师范学院学报》,2006年第1期。
[22]巫若枝：“论中国婚姻法在法律体系中地位研究之误区——兼与婚姻法私法论商榷”,《中华女子学院学报》,2006第5期。
[23]巫若枝：“当代中国家事法制实践研究”,中国人民大学博士学位论文,2007年。
[24]陈苇、秦志远：“我国台湾地区防止家庭暴力立法与司法之研究及其启示”,陈苇：《中国婚姻家庭法立法研究》,北京：群众出版社,2007年第二版。
[25]刘亚林：“论宣告婚姻无效案件审判程序——对《婚姻法司法解释(一)宣告婚姻无效案件程序规定的理解》”,万鄂湘主编：《婚姻法理论与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版。
[26]陈雪萍：“无效婚姻之诉若干问题探讨”,《湖南省政法管理干部学院学报》,2002年第4期。
[27]赵刚、王杏飞：“我国法院调解制度的新发展”,《法学评论》,2005年第6期。
[28]伊恩·史密斯：“欧洲离婚法、离婚率及其因果关系”,载[英]安东尼·W·丹尼斯、罗伯特·罗森：《结婚与离婚的发经济学分析》,王世贤译,北京：法律出版社2005年版。
[29]陈苇、胡苷用：“离婚诉讼前处理子女抚养纠纷的一种新机制——澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’评介及其启示”,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,2007年第4期。
[30]张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第7卷),北京：法律出版社,1997年版。
[31]黄荣康、路志新：“澳大利亚家事法院的调解”,《广州审判》,2005年第6期。
[32]卫洁：“澳大利亚家庭法的家事调解制度对我国的启示”,《山西农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2007年第2期。
[33][日]小岛武司：“调停制度”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版。
[34]李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期。
[35][日]小岛武司：“家事法院的诉讼法意义”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版。
[36]“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”课题组：“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”,《中国法学会婚姻家庭法学会研究会2009年年会论文集》。
[37]李荣棣、唐德华：“试论我国民事诉讼法中的调解”,《法学研究》,1981年第5期。转引自章武生、吴泽勇：“法院调解制度之重塑”,章武生等：《司法现代化与民事诉讼制度的建构》,法律出版社,2000年版。
[38]蒋月：“构建婚姻家庭诉讼司法调解制度”,载《甘肃社会科学》2008年第1期。
[39]陈苇、来文彬：“论我国家事纠纷人民调解的新机制——以澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’之家事纠纷调解为视角”,《学术交流》,2009年第7期。
[40]陈爱武：“家事调解：比较借鉴与制度重构”,《法学》,2007年第6期。
[41]季国刚、张伟林：“调解是人民法院审理离婚案件的必经程序”,《湖州师专学报》,1988年第1期。
[42]于伟：“调解并非离婚诉讼的必经程序”,《现代法学》,1986年第4期。
[43]范建友：“调解不是审理婚姻案件的必经程序”,《法学》,1987年第8期。
[44]王红岩：“试论离婚诉讼中的调解”,陈光中主编：《诉讼法学论丛》(1986-1987),北京：中国政法大学出版社,1988年版。
[45]连春祥：“离婚调解之己见”,吉罗洪主编：《新世纪审判实践与案例评析》(上),北京：人民法院出版社2006年版。
[1]崔清新：“建议将主持调解纳入律师执业范围”,新华网2009年8月17日。
[2]白龙：“最高法副院长：法官律师应同担一份责任、同守一条底线”,《人民日报》,2010年1月27日。
[3]支振锋：“调解能否成为法院化解社会矛盾的法宝”,《中国社会科学报》,2009年12月15日。
[4]林白：“《意见》的尴尬困境”,《法制日报》,“法学院”专版,2009年10月14日。
[5]陈虹伟、李娜：“律师借协商性调解机制转型”,《法制日报》,2009年11月13日。
[6]何玲玲、孙金霞：“杭州下城区：‘和事佬’调解机制化解民间矛盾”,http://news.cctv.com/ china/20090319/104993.shtml/2009-10-10。
[7]朱隽：“民政部发布《中国民政统计年鉴(2009)》显示：离婚好说好散越来越多,法院诉讼越来越少”,《重庆晚报》,2009年12月21日。
[8]常风臣：“离婚调解能否适用自愿原则”,《人民法院报》,2005年第4版。
[9]谭桂珍：“论澳门婚姻登记制度”,http://www.bnusgl.com/Item/2393.aspx/2009-11-11.
[10]陈敏：“家庭暴力不适用调解”,http://yyfx. chinacourt. org/public/detail. php?id= 73/20 09-10-10.
[11]“妇联倡设家事法庭调解中心,司警局吁妇女及未成年人遭虐打性侵立即报案”,《澳门日报》,2009年8月16日。
[12]潘剑锋：“调解风暴：和谐社会构建的一道风景”,中国政法大学讲座内容,法大民商经济法网http://www.ccelaws.com/qianyanbaogao/2009-12-20/8680.html/2010-1-6。
[1]Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes:Principles of Practice (Third Edition), Eng land: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008.
[2]Carol A. Butler and Dolores D. Walker, The Divorce Mediation Answer Book, New York: Kodansha America, Inc..
[3]Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation, London: Sweet& Maxwell,1997.
[4]Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practi ce, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002.
[5]Patti Bertschler and Laurette Cocklin, TRUCE! Using Elder Mediation to Resolve Conflict among Families, Seniors and Organizations, NCS Publishing,2004.
[6]John Bertschler and Patti Bertschler, Elder Mediation: A New Solution to Age-Old Proble ms, NCS Publishing,2009.
[7]Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem (ed.), Divorce and Family Mediation:Mode Is, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004.
[8]Laurence Boulle. Mediation:Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition). LexisNexis Bu tterworths, Australia,2005.
[9]Morton Deutsch. Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Hav en: Yale University Press,1973.
[10]Coogler O.J. Structured Mediation in Divorce Settlement: A Handbook for Marital Mediat ors. Lexington, Mass.:D.C. Heath.1978.
[11]Joan Blades, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engle wood Cliffs, New Jersey,1985.
[12]Haynes J. M., Divorce Mediation:A practical guide for therapist and counselors, New Y ork: Spring,1981.
[13]Haynes J. M., Mediating Divorce: A casebook of I successful for family negotiations, San Francisco:Jossey Boss,1989.
[14]Haynes J. M., The Fundamental of Family Mediation, State University of New York Pres s,1994.
[15]Haynes J.M. The Fundamental of Family Mediation, State University of New York Press, 1994.
[16]Hanson, James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985.
[17]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995.
[18]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation:Helping Familie s Resolve Conflict, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,2002.
[19]Johnston J. and Roseby, In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understand ing and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997.
[20]Johnston J. and Campbell L. Impasse of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Confli ct, New York: Simon and Schuster,1988.
[21]Johnston J. and Roseby, In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understand ing and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997.
[22]Bech, A. T. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence Ne w York: HarperCollins,1999.
[23]Bush and Folger, The Promise of mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1994.
[24]Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation:Mode ls, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004.
[25]Baruch Bush and J Folger, The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Ball,1994.
[26]Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practi ce. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2002.
[27]Joan Blade, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1985.
[28]Landau, B., Bartoletti & R. Mesbur, Family Mediation Handbook, Toronto:Butterworths, 1987.
[29]Michael White and David Epston, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, New York:W. W. Norton & Company,1990.
[30]White, M. Maps of narrative practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,2007.
[31]John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Reso lution. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass,2000.
[32]John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Practicing Narrative Mediation:Loosening the Grip of Conflict, CA:Jossey-Bass,2008.
[33]Beck, C. J. A. & Sales, B. D. Family mediation: Facts, myths and future prospects. Was hington, DC:American Psychological Association,2001.
[1]The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Di vorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1,2001.
[2]Timothy Hedeen, Coercion and Self-determination in Court-connected Mediation:All Medi ation are Voluntary, but Some are More Voluntary than Others, The Justice System Journal, Vol.2 6, No.3,2005.
[3]C. Eileen Pruett, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation:Guideli nes for a Mature Profession, American Journal of Family Law, Vol.15, Issue 4,2001.
[4]ABA, Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Law Disputes 1984, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4,1984.
[5]Andrew Schepard, An Introduction to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Di vorce Mediation, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1,2001.
[6]Alison Taylor, Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Context, Ethics, Influence, an d Transformative Process, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.14, No.3,1997.
[7]Susan Douglas, Neutrality in Mediation: A Study of Mediator Perceptions, Queensland Un iversity of Technology Law and Justice Journal, Vol.8, No.1,2008.
[8]Orna Cohen, Naomi Dattner, and Ahron Luxenburg, The Limits of the Mediator's Neutral ity, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4,1999.
[9]Janet Rifkin, Jonathan Millen, Sara Cobb, Toward a New Discourse for Mediation: A Crit ique of Neutrality, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 2,1991.
[10]Kevin Gibson, Leigh Thompson and Max H. Bazerman, Shortcomings of Neutrality in M ediation: Solutions Based on Rationality, Negotiation Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1,2008.
[11]Lawrence R. Freedman, Michael L. Prigoff, Confidentiality in Mediation:The Need for Pr otection, Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.2:1,1986.
[12]F Crobie, Aspects of Confidentiality in Mediation:A Matter of Balancing Competing Pub lic Interests, CDRJ, Vol.51, No.2,1995.
[13]Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consiste ncy or Crucial Predictability?, Marquette Law Review, Vol.85,2001-2002.
[14]Craig McEwen and Nancy H. Rogers, Bringing the Lawyers into Divorce Mediation, Disp ute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994.
[15]Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel, Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends:A Survey of th e States,39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431,2001.
[16]Karen A. Zerhusen, Reflections on the Role of the Neutral Lawyer: The Lawyer as Medi ator, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol.81, pp.1165-1176,1992-1993.
[17]Riskin, Leonard L., Toward New Standards for the Neutral Lawyer in Mediation,26 Ari z. L. Rev.329,1984.
[18]Pauline h. tesler, The Organized Bar and the Collaborative Law Movement:A Study in P rofessional Change,50 ARIZ. L. REV.290,2008.
[19]Thomas D. Vu, Going to Court as a Last Resort: Establishing a Duty for Attorneys in D ivorce Proceedings to Discuss Alternative Dispute Resolution with Their Clients,47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 586,2009.
[20]William J. Howe & Hugh Mclsaac, Including Children in Family Law Proceedings-Interna tional Perspectives:Finding the Balance:Ethical Challenges and Best Practices for Lawyers Present ing Parents when the Interests of Children as Stake,46 Fam.Ct.Rev.78,2008.
[21]Donald T. Saposnek, The Value of Children in Mediation: A Cross-cultural Perspective, M ediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4,1994.
[22]Lauri Boxer-Macomber, Revisting the Impact of California's Mandatory Custody Mediation Program on Victims of Domestic Violence Through a Feminist Positionality Lens,15 St. Thomas L. Rev.883,2003.
[23]Hon. Leonard Edwards, Steve Barton, and George Ferrick, A Comment on William J. Ho we and Hugh Mcisaac's Article "Finding the Balance" Published in the 22 January 2008 Issue of Family Court Review,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.586,2008.
[24]Hon. Leonard Edwards, Steve Barton, and George Ferrick, Domestic Violence and Mediati on: A Dialogue:Supply,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.595,2008.
[25]Penelope E. Bryan, Reclaiming Professionalism: The Layer's Role in Divorce Mediation, 28 Fam. L. Q.1994.
[26]John Kelly and Mary Dueyee, Women's and Men's Views of Mediation in Voluntary and Mandatory Mediation Settings, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol.30,1992.
[27]Marion Liebmann, History and Overview of Mediation in the UK, IN Marion edited, Me diation in Context, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers,2000.
[28]Kelly J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and conciliation courts review, Vol.34,1996.
[29]Depner C., Cannata K. and Simon M., Building a Uniform Statistical Reporting System: A Snapshot of California Family Court Services, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol.30,1 992.
[30]Depner C, Cannata K. and Ricci I., Client Evaluation of Mediation Services, Family and Conciliation Courts Review', Vol.32, No.3,1994.
[31]Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative:Process Dangers for Women,100 Yale L.J.1545, 1990.
[32]Jennifer P. Maxwell, Mandatory Mediation of Custody in the Face of Domestic Violence: Suggestions for Courts and Mediators,37 Fam. & Concil. Cts Rev.335,1999.
[33]Dane A. Gaschen, Mandatory Custody Mediation: The Debate over Its Usefulness Continu es,10 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.469,1995.
[34]Karla Fischer et al., The Culture of Battering and the Role of Mediation in Domestic Vi olence Cases,46 Smu L. Rev.2117,1993.
[35]Lisa G. Lerman, Mediation of Wife-Abuse Case:The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women,7 Harv. Women's L. J.57,1984.
[36]William J. Howe and Hugh Mcisaac, Finding the Balance:Ethical Challenges and Best P ractices for Layers Representing Parents When the Interests of Children Are at Stake,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.78,2008.
[37]William J. Howe and Hugh Mcisaac, Domestic Violence and Mediation:A Dialogue:Res ponse,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.592,2008.
[38]Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No, and Maybe:Informed Decision Making About Divorce Medi ation in the Presence of Domestic Violence,9 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L.145,2003.
[39]Alison Healy, One-Third of Couples in Mediation Faced Domestic Violence, The Irish tim es, September 12,2007.
[40]Robin Drapkin, and Florence Bienenfeld, "The Power of Including Children in Custody Mediation", in Craig A. Everett (Ed.), Divorce Mediation:Perspectives on the Field, The Waworth Press, Inc.,1985.
[41]Ernest A. Sanchez & Sherrie Kibler-Sanchez, Empowering Children in Mediation,3 Fam. Ct. Rev.42,2004.
[42]Judge Leonard Edwards (ret), Comments on the Miller Commission Report: A California Perspective, Pace Law Review, Vol.27,2007.
[43]Carrie-Anne Tondo et al., Mediation Trends:A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV. 431,2001.
[44]Joan B. Kelly, Psychological and Legal Interventions for Parents and Children in Custody and Access Disputes:Current Research and Practice,10 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L.129,2002.
[45]Edwad Kruk, Grandparent Visitation Disputes:Multigenerational Approaches to Family Me diation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.l,1994.
[46]Partick Parkison, Keeping in contact: the role of family relationship centres in Australia, Child and Family LawQuarterly, Vol.18, No.2,2006.
[47]McIntosh, Jennifer E; Wells,Yvonne D; Long, Caroline M, Child-focused and Child-inclusi ve Family Law Dispute Resolution:One Year Findings from a Prospective Study of Outcomes, Jo urnal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 1,2007.
[48]Boyhan, Patricia A; Gerner, Francesca J T, "Doing What It Takes":A Family Dispute Re solution Case Study Using a Multidisciplinary Approach, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 2, Nov.2007.
[49]Hewlett, Bill, Accessing the Parental Ming Through the Heart:A Case Study in Child In elusive Mediation, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 1,2007.
[50]Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of F amily Mediation: Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2,1997.
[51]Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Chan ges in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3,1994.
[52]Sarah Childs Grebe, Building on structures mediation:An Integrated Model for Global M ediation of Separation and Divorce, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.1,1994.
[53]Vanderkooi, L., & Pearson, J. Mediating divorce disputes:Mediator behaviors, styles and rules. Family Relations, Vol.32, No.4,1983.
[54]Susan M. Brown, Models of mediation, in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediati on, USA:Aspen Systems Corporation,1985.
[55]Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces:A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2,1983.
[56]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Servi ces to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2,1989.
[57]Beth M. Erickson, Therapeutic Mediation: A Saner Way of Disputing, Journal of America n Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Vol.14,1997.
[58]Michael Benjamin and Howard H. Irving, Toward a Feminist-informed Model of Therape utic Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.10, No.2,1992.
[59]Robert E. Emery, David Sbarra and Tara Grover, Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflec tion,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.22,2009.
[60]Robert A. Hahn and David M. Kleist, Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflection for Fa mily and Couples Counselling, The Family Journal, Vol.8, No.2,2000.
[61]Kelly, J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and Conciliation Courts Revi ew, Vol.34,1996.
[62]Leonard Riskin, Mediator Orientations, Strategies, Techniques, Alternatives to the High Co st of Litigation, Vol.12,1994.
[63]Riskin, L. L., Understanding Mediators'Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques:A Grid f or the Perplexed, Harford Negotiation Law Review, Vol.1,1997.
[64]Alfini, J. J., and Glay, G. S. Should Lawyer Mediators Be Prohibited from Providing Leg al Advice or Evaluations?, Dispute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994.
[65]Love, L.P. The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should not Evaluate, Florida State Univ ersity Law Review, Vol.24,1997.
[66]Robert A Baruch Bush and Sally Ganong Pope, Changing the Quality of Conflict Interact ion:The Principles and Practice of Transformative Mediation, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol.3,2002.
[67]Bush, R. A. B., What do We Need a Mediator? Mediation's Value-added for Negotiation, Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol.12,1996.
[68]Della Noce, D. J. Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in Mediation, Neg otiation Journal, Vol.15, No.3,1999.
[69]M Dewdney, Transformative Mediation:Implications for Practitioners,2001,12 ADRJ 20.
[70]Folger J. & Bush. R. Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention:Ten Hallmark s of a Transformative Approach to Practice, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.13,1995.
[71]J Millen and S Cobb, "Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality", 9 Mediation Quarterly 151,1991.
[72]JenniJer McIntosh, Child-Inclusive Divorce Mediation: Report on a Qualitative Research S tudy, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.18, No.l,2000.
[73]Linda Crush, When Mediation Fails Child Protection:Lessons for the Future,23 Can. J. Fam. L.5,2007.
[74]Alberta Law Reform Institute, Court-connected Family Mediation Programs in Canada, Re search paper No.20, May 1994.
[75]Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, Evaluation of the Family Mediation Pr acticum Project, June 2005.
[76]Miquel Martin Casals, Divorce Mediation in Europe:An Introductory Outline, Electronic j ournal of Comparative Law, Vol.9, No.2,2005.
[77]Council of Europe, Concept Paper of the 7th European Conference on Family Law on In ternational Family Mediation, CONF-FL (2009) 1.
[78]Janet A. Walker, Family Mediation in England:Strategies for Gaining Acceptance, Medial ion Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4,1991.
[79]Marian Roberts, Family Mediation: The Development of the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.22, No.4,2005.
[80]Benoit Bastard and Laura Cardia-voneche, Family Mediation in France, International Jour nal of Law and the Family, Vol.7, No.3,1993.
[81]Elisa Guiraud Terrier, Challengea of Training in International Family Mediation in the Lig ht of Experience of the "DIPLOME D'ETAT" in International Family Mediation, CONF-FL-SP (20 09) 13 E.
[82]Deborah Macfarlane, Family Mediation in France, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.10, No.3, 2004.
[83]Stephane Charlesworth, The Acceptance of Family Mediation in Australia, Mediation Quar terly, Vol.8 No.4,1991.
[84]Alaistair Nicholson, Mediation in the Family Court of Australia,32 Family and Conciliati on Court Review,139,1994.
[85]Dale Bagshaw, Developing Family Mediation Standards: An Australian Experience, Medial ion Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4,1999.
[86]Berry Zondag, Let's not Get Mediation into our Courts at All. NZ Lawyer, Issue 120,4 September 2009.
[87]Satoshi Minamikata, Resolution of Disputes over Parental Rights and Duties in a Marital Dissolution Case in Japan:A Nonlitigious Approach in Chotei (Family Court Mediation), Family L aw Quarterly, Volume 39, Number 2,2005.
[88]Partricia L. Sullivan, Culture, Divorce, and Family Mediation in Hong Kong,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.109,2005.
[89]Black, M., and Joffee W., A Lawyer/Therapist Team Approach to Divorce, Conciliation a nd Courts Review, Vol.16, No.l,1978.
[90]Joseph L. Steinberg, Towards an Interdisciplinary Commitment: A Divorce Lawyer Propos es Attorney-Therapist Marriages or, at the Least, an Affair, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 6 Issue 3,1980.
[91]Neil Robinson, ADR Professional:Developing Family Mediation, [2009] Fam Law 253.
[1]Old AFM-AFCC Standards of Practice for Divorce and Family Mediation (1984), at: http: //www.mediate.com/articles/afmstds.cfm/2009-09-09.
[2]ABA, AAA. & Assn. for Conflict Res., Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, at: h ttp://www.abanet.org/dispute/news/ModelStandardsofConductfor Mediatorsfina105.pdf/2009-09-09.
[3]Arline Kardasis and Blair Trippe, Elder and Family Mediation Services, at: http://www.lo ngtermcarelink.net/eldercare/eldermediation.htm/2009-11-11.
[4]Anthony J. Serra, Esq., Using Elder Mediation in Adult Guardianship Cases:A New Appro ach for the Court Appointed Attorney, at: http://www.eldermediationcenter.com/pgl0.cfm/2009-11-12
[5]Susan K. Boardman, John Fiske, Laurie Israel, and Ken Neumann, Marital Mediation: An Emerging Area of Practice, May 2009, at:http://www.mediate.com/articles/maritalmediationl. cfm/20 09-12-11.
[6]Jan Mark Dudman, Co-Mediation with Attorney and Marriage Family Therapist, at: http:// www.divorcenet.com/states/california/comediation_with_attomey_and_family_therapist/2009-12-12.
[7]Toran Hansen, The Narrative Approach to Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/ articles/ hansenT/2009-10-12.
[8]SCENTRO NAZIONALE PER IL VOLONTARIATO, Family Mediation in Europe,at:http: //www.centxovolontariato.net/daphine/mind/meeeting_bruxelles/Family_Mediation_in_Europe.pdf.
[9]Beverley A Sayers, Family Mediation in England and Wales, at:http://www.europarl. europ a.eu/comparl/juri/hearings/20071004/sayers l_en.pdf.
[10]Evaluation Studies of Family Mediation Services in Australia, at: http://epublications. bond. edu.au/law-pubs/107/2009-08-09.
[11]Carol Powell, Let's get the new family mediation service into our Family Courts, at: http: //www.leadr. co.nz/db/images/M_PDFs_articles/familycrt.pdf.
[12]Lim Lan Yuan, Mediation Styles and Approaches in Asian Culture, at: http://www. apmec. unisa.edu.au/apmf/2003/papers/limlanyuan.pdf.
[13]Lisa Parkinson, Developing International Family Mediation and Harmonizing Standards, C ONF-FL-SP (2009) 2 E.
19 See Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence,9 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L.145, (2003).
20参见高凤仙著：《家庭暴力防治法规专论》,台湾：五南图书出版社有限公司,1998年版,第20页。
32参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第198-200页。
33参见陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第019页、第157-159页：韩炜：“中请宣告婚姻无效案件相关问题——赵某申请宣告赵某某与葛某婚姻无效案法律问题探讨”,北京市高级人民法院编：《婚姻家庭新型疑难案例判解》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第4-13页。34[德]奥特马·尧厄尼希：《民事诉讼法》,周翠译,北京：法律出版社,2003年版,第50页。
35例如有观点认为,婚姻关系、身份关系确认案件的处理和解决,不仅直接事关案件当事人个人的权益保护,更与国家的婚姻制度、身份制度及社会的公序良俗密不可分,因此均须以国家法律的明确规定作为解决纠纷的依据,而不允许各方当事人通过达成调解协议的方式来合意处分,这是当事人意思自治的一个例外。否则,将会出现婚姻关系和身份关系是否存在或是否有效可以由当事人自己来合意商定的荒唐局面。参见赵刚、王杏飞：“我国法院调解制度的新发展”,《法学评论》,2005年第6期。我们认为,且不说当事人意思自治与国家强制干预的衡平问题,即使调解当事人达成协议也并非意味着当事人自行决定,因为调解组织和法院会依法对协议是否违背法律规定予以审查。
36参见陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第018、157-159页：黄松有主编：《婚姻法司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第38-40页。
37参见王洪：《从身份到契约》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版,第15页。
38参见蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,科学出版社,2007年版,第352页。
39日本《家事审判法》第23条。
40参见邓学仁等：((DNA鉴定一亲子关系争端之解决》(2007年修订版),台湾：元照出版有限公司,2006年第二版,第162-205页。
41美国《家事与离婚调解实务示范标准》第1条即规定：当事人自主决策是家事调解的基础性原则；调解程序取决于调解参与人自愿、清楚地(informed)决策。See The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation 2000, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1, pp.121-138.
46国外关于家事强制调解与当事人自主决策的讨论,参见Timothy Hedeen, Coercion and Self-determination in Court-connected Mediation: All Mediation are Voluntary, but Some are More Voluntary than Others, The Justice System Journal, Vol.26, No.3,2005, pp.273-291.
47参见宋明志：“论法院调解的强制性”,《政法论丛》,2008年第1期,第77-81页。当然该文一些说法尚值得商榷。例如该文中陈述“家事案件先行调解比较容易被理论和实务所接受,盖因其与家庭关系密切而有必要以调解促成稳定、妥善解决”；其“其”字指代什么十分费解；该文认为我国婚姻法第32条规定之离婚调解并非是诉前强制调解,等等,对此详见后评。
48参见周永坤：“论强制性调解对法治和公平的冲击”,《法律科学》,2007年第3期,第11-24页。
49参见高玮玮：“强制离婚调解制度的评析与走向”,《律师世界》,2000年第8期,第36-39页。
50参见陈弘毅：“调解、诉讼与公正——对现代自由社会和儒家传统的反思”,《现代法学》,2001年第3期,第11页。
51从英文术语来看,强制调解中的“强制”,使用的词汇是"mandatory"而并非"compulsory".前者更多的是指一种“法定的、义务的”强制,而后者还含有“强迫”的意思。显然,对当事人意志的违反更多是指对其自由意愿的强迫。
54 See Standard Ⅱ of Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1, 2001, pp.121-138.
55调解员的年龄关系着其人生阅历(经历与经验)、并一定程度上决定其对婚姻家庭及其纠纷之认识、所持态度、应对举措。就笔者非正式接触之当事人、律师感受而言,当前中国法院调解中,一个十分突出的问题是法官年轻化一定程度上影响着家事纠纷(特别是离婚等涉及身份关系重大变更之纠纷)的当事人及其代理人对调解法官之信任度。56关于加拿大、英国、澳大利亚等国家的家事调解员认可制度,可参见香港特别行政区立法委员会立法秘书处：《选定海外司法管辖区家事调解员的认可制度》,资料摘要编号IN17、03-04。
57关于欧洲家事调解员的培训内容及其一般标准,可参见欧洲司法效率委员会(CEPEJ)《关于更好实施现行家事调解以及民事案件调解建议之指导方针》第1.6条之规定。See CEPEJ, Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Recommendation Concerning Family Mediation and Mediation in Civil Matters, CEPJ (2007)14, p.4.
58 See Lawyers and Divorce Mediation in Florida, at: http://www.fmc.ca/index.php?page=12/2009-09-09.
59 For examples, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators(1995); Iowa Supreme Court, Rules Governing Standards of Practice for Lawyer-Mediators in Family Disputes(1986), etc
60 C. Eileen Pruett, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation: Guidelines for a Mature Profession, American Journal of Family Law, Vol.15, Issue 4,2001, p.276. 61 See Old AFM - AFCC Standards of Practice for Divorce and Family Mediation(1984), at: http://www.mediate.com/artic-les/afmstds.cfm/2009-09-09.
62 See ABA, Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Law Disputes 1984, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4, 1984, pp.445-460.
63该规定制定和采用于1994年,2005年被修订。See ABA, AAA.& Assn. for Conflict Res., Model Standards of Conduct
for Mediators, at: http://www.abanet.org/dispute/news/ModelStandardsofConductfor Mediatorsfina105.pdf/2009-09-09.
64该组织全称为National Council of Dispute Resolution Organization,是一个联合组织,由家事调解员协会(AFC)、美国律师协会纠纷解决委员会、AFCC、冲突解决教育网(Conflict Resolution Education Network)、全国社区调解协会(the National Association for Community Mediation) 、全国和平与冲突解决会议(the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution)以及纠纷解决专家协会等组织组成。
65 The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1,2001, pp.121-138.
66该示范标准具体内容介绍可参见Andrew Schepard, An Introduction to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Family Law Quarterly,Vol.35. No.1,2001, pp.1-26.
67 See Alison Taylor, Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Context, Ethics, Influence, and Transformative Process, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.14, No.3,1997, pp.215-236.
68在西方家事调解文本与实务中,调解中立究竟是指“调解员与双方当事人关系无利害关系、无偏见以及平等对待”还是调解员“超然于调解程序与结果”一直存在不同的看法,参见Susan Douglas, Neutrality in Mediation: A Study of Mediator Perceptions, Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, Vol.8, No.1,2008, pp.139-157.
69在国外,家事调解一般都是“面对面”调解,“穿梭外交”、“私下会见”或者“背靠背”调解仅在权力失衡如严重家庭暴力等特殊情形使用。在我国,最高人民法院《关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第7条规定,调解时当事人各方应当同时在场,但根据需要也可以对当事人分别作调解工作。何谓“需要”,不得而知,标准何在,亦不可知。实务中,由于调解人员(无论是法院调解还是人民调解)通常担任劝解、说服工作,故分别作调解工作的比较常见。程序的宽松客观上给调解人员“权力恣意”提供了空间：例如利用“所谓的”判决结果劝服当事人让步或接受其提出的解决方案等等。
70 See Orna Cohen, Naomi Dattner, and Ahron Luxenburg, The Limits of the Mediator's Neutrality, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4, Summer 1999, pp.341-348; Janet Rifkin, Jonathan Millen, Sara Cobb, Toward a New Discourse for Mediation: A Critique of Neutrality, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 2,1991, Pages 151-164; Kevin Gibson, Leigh Thompson and Max H. Bazerman, Shortcomings of Neutrality in Mediation:Solutions Based on Rationality, Negotiation Journal, Volume 12 Issue 1,2008, pp.69-80.
71参见[加]岳云编著：《家庭调解——适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽、王振福、袁菊花译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第72-73页。
72 See Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Third Edition), England: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008, pp.143-146.
73在我国,调解员提出调解方案供当事人协商参考在实务中司空见惯,甚至相关法律亦对此明确规定。例如,《最高人民法院关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第8条。有观点认为这是因为法院调解性质上是审判权与当事人处分权的结合,因而,法官可以提出方案,只要当事人最终选择是自愿的。并指出台湾地区、韩国也有类似规定。参见杨润时主编：《最高人民法院民事调解工作司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社2004年版,第92-96页。但问题是,此处,当事人的“自愿”如何界定与把握?基于法官身份的双重性考虑,如何保障法官的立场与建议对当事人的影响是正向的或者说起码不是负向的?我们认为,调解中法官浓厚的职权主义色彩源于纠纷解决机制(无论是传统教化型调解还是现代司法)对“实质正义”的追求。
74需要指出的是,评价型调解中调解员提供相关评价,其与促成型调解相比,在公正规则的严格遵守上显然有一定程度地松动,但本质上其仍是坚持形式公正,并不像判断型调解那样,以实质性结果为实现目标。其对法律后果等的评价谨供当事人决策参考,而不是作为当事人解决方案的衡量标准。
75如美国《统一调解法》第8条和《家事与离婚调解实务示范标准》之标准7、《欧洲调解员行为法典》第4条,等。
76 See Lawrence R. Freedman, Michael L. Prigoff, Confidentiality in Mediation:The Need for Protection, Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.2:1,1986, pp.37-40; F Crobie, Aspects of Confidentiality in Mediation: A Matter of Balancing Competing Public Interests, CDRJ, Vol.51, No.2,1995, p.51; Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability?, Marquette Law Review, Vol.85,2001-2002,pp.79-84.
77 Carol A. Butler and Dolores D. Walker, The Divorce Mediation Answer Book, New York: Kodansha America, Inc.,1999, pp.19-20.
78 See Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Third Edition), England: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008, pp.183-190.
79 Andrew Schepard, Chapter 22 The Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, in Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem ed., Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.525-526.
80如澳大利亚《1975年家事法法令》第10H条第2款分情况具体列举了同意主体之情况：18岁以上者可以自行同意,18岁以下者须经承担抚养责任者或法院同意：第3款则规定,为保护子女不受伤害、防止或减少严重而紧迫的生命、健康危险、制止暴力行为或故意毁坏他人财产等犯罪行为等情况(有合理理由确信)可以公开相关信息。参见陈苇：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社2009年版,第57-59页。
81对调解员予以年龄要求是调解员资质要求的重要内容之一,例如,美国弗罗里达州、马里兰州法院规则即规定调解员必须年满21周岁,且具有本科及以上学历(See Rule 17-104(a)(1)of Maryland Court Rules;http://www.flcourts.org /gen＿public/adr/bin/How To Become a Mediator.pdf);南卡罗来纳州则规定法院家事调解员须年满21周岁并取得法律硕士(JD)及以上学位。See State Requirements for Mediators,at:http://www.mediationworks.com/medcert3/staterequireme-nts.htm/2009-09-12.
82在外国,“调解机构的调解员通常是由律师、法学教授、行业专家等担任；法院附设调解机构的调解员多是由律师、退休法官担任；诉前法院调解的调解员则是由受命法官、法院书记官、准备程序法官担任”,参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第182页。
83在西方所谓法院调解,是指调解地点在法院的调解,即法院附设调解。而我们国家通常所谓的法院调解是指由法官在审判过程中(不管诉前、诉中、诉后)主持之调解,因此,称呼其为似乎“法官调解”更为妥帖。84对于法院(法官)调解的性质,我国民事诉讼法学界一直存在不同认识。最初大多主张是法院行使审判权的一种方式,而常怡教授等则认为其是建立在当事人处分权基础上的,是当事人行使处分权和法院行使审判权相结合的产物。参见江伟主编：《民事诉讼法学原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社1999年版,第528页。还有的认为,法官调解并非是行使审判权,而是促成当事人达成协议,这一点上其与人民调解并无不同。法院调解本质上仍是当事人处分其实体和诉讼权利,和以解决纠纷的行为。只是法院行使职权对当事人合意进行审查确认这一“类似审判”的行为使其于其他形式的调解相区别。参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第3-13页(矛盾的是,该书另一处又主张法官调解实际上是行使审判权,参见第183页)。我们认为,无论是抱持哪种主张,与人民调解,特别是西方现代调解相比较可见,“由法官主持调解、在审判中调解、讲求查明事实、分清是非,而且调解协议具有裁判效力、甚至当事人不得上诉”等等这些特征都鲜明地表明法官(法院)调解司法属性(不管是否认同其是审判性质),因此法院(法院)调解常被称呼为诉讼调解、司法调解。
85关于法院附设调解的域外制度介绍,参见辛国清：《法院附设替代性纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,第83-193页(但该作者主张法院附设替代纠纷解决机制本质上是ADR性质,但同时义具有“一定的”司法性质)；范愉主编：《ADR原理与实务》,厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002年版,第466-468页。
86在外国,诉讼案件调解通常是交由法院外的调解组织或个人进行的。调解员都是审判法官以外的专业调解人员,审判法官不同时担任调解员,不得对案件进行调解。调解是独立于诉讼程序之外的又与诉讼程序相连接的程序。调解有其自己的程序规范,与民事诉讼不同。参见宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,,2008年版,第178页。需要说明的是,基于费用的考虑,当事人较大部分选择政府公立结构服务(包括法院附设调解服务),委托给私人机构与个人的相对少一些。
87其参与调解的人员与我国法院倡导之立案调解主体类似。不同的是,我国的立案调解仍是法官主持,而且具有司法性,似可归于第二类型。当然,西方国家也有少数法院如加拿大哥伦比亚省试点由法官主持调解(此时法官非审判角色而是调解员角色,经专门调解训练)运用标准调解模式调解案件。但其仅为尝试,并不代表实务一般情况。
88 See European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Recommendation Concerning Family Mediation and Mediation in Civil Matters, CEPEJ (2007)14, p.3.
89参见王亚新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期,第3-22页；季卫东：“调解与法制的悖论”,《法学研究》,1989年第5期：江伟、李浩：“市场经济与法院调解制度的完善”,《中国人民大学学报》,1995年第3期；李浩：“论调解不宜作为民事审判权的运作方式”,《法律科学》,1996年第4期,第68-74页；李浩：“民事审判中的调审分离”,《法学研究》,第18卷第4期,第57-68页；张晋红：“法院调解的立法价值探究——简评法院调解的两种改良观点”,《法学研究》,1998年第5期,第110-116页,等等。
90倘若不去除司法性质的司法调解,而一味进行所谓的“对接”实则是缘木求鱼或自相矛盾。因为司法调解本身就是诉讼与调解的正宗“杂交”。有学者形象地将调解与司法相结合的人民审判模式称呼为“调解式判决”。参见王亚 新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期,第3-22页；王亚新：《社会变革中的民事诉讼法》,北京：中国法制出版社,2001年版,第10-18页。
91在西方这些国家,法院为促成当事人和解,中止诉讼后建议或转介有关组织或个人调解；书记员负责调解转介、管理、联络工作以及当事人和解协议制作等事务；法官并不主持调解。认为“法官在双方当事人同意的情况下由法官主持调解”的说法显然是缺乏依据的,参见陈群峰：《离婚利益协调接机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版,第127页。
92例如,在美国,有24个州的立法赋权法官在家事诉讼中转介、指示调解。See Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel, Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV.431,445(2001).
93参见[美]斯蒂芬B戈尔德堡等：《纠纷解决——谈判、调解和其他机制》,蔡彦敏等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第484-488页。
94参见[英]迈克尔努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版,第29-30页。
95 See Craig McEwen and Nancy H. Rogers, Bringing the Lawyers into Divorce Mediation, ABA Dispute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994, pp.8-10; Craig A. McEwen, Nancy H. Rogers, and Richard J. Maiman, Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation,79 Minn. L. Rev.1317(1994-1995).
100 See Pauline h. tesler, The Organized Bar and the Collaborative Law Movement: A Study in Professional Change,50 ARIZ. L. REV.290,327; Gary L. Voegele et al., Collaborative Law: A Useful Tool for the Family Law Practitioner to Promote Better Outcomes,33 WM. MITCHELL L. REV.971,978; William H. Schwab, Collaborative Lawyering: A Closer Look at an Emerging Practice,4 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J.351.
101参见崔清新：“建议将主持调解纳入律师执业范围”,新华网2009年8月17日：白龙：“最高法副院长：法官律师应同担一份责任、同守一条底线”,《人民日报》,2010年1月27日。
102有关讨论,参见支振锋：“调解能否成为法院化解社会矛盾的法宝”,《中国社会科学报》,2009年12月15日；林白：“《意见》的尴尬困境”,《法制日报》“法学院”专版2009年10月14日；陈虹伟、李娜：“律师借协商性调解机制转型”,《法制日报》,2009年11月13日；陈杨、杜远银：“浅析如何发挥律师在诉讼调解中的作用”,《法制与社会》,2009年第27期,等文章。
103参见常怡主编：《中国调解制度》,重庆：重庆出版社,1990年版,第55-57页。 情况。协议离婚包括协议登记离婚和协议诉讼离婚两种。在国外,依法院诉讼程序的协议离婚包括两种情况,一是经法院批准,二是经法院裁决,而在我国,则是指法院调解离婚。参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第296-298页。
119有学者认为登记离婚多得承认之原因在于离婚原因大多复杂、“清官难断家务事”、“家丑不可外扬”；何况采取登记形式,不仅能以和平方法两愿妥善解决纠纷,避免恶意讼争、对簿公堂之敌对与仇视,而且手续简便、节省费用。离婚后,子女亲权之行使、夫妻财产之清算、离婚损害赔偿与赡养费之请求,均能在国家机关监督下进行,减少无谓纠纷。参见戴炎辉、戴东雄：《亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化有限公司,2004年版,第253、255页。
120两愿合离早在我国汉朝时期即有其例：妻子交付“赎身费”得以合离。参见史尚宽：《亲属法论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000年版,第462页。
121其“民法”第1050条于1985年6月3日修正公布,6月5日开始施行。
122戴炎辉、戴东雄：《中国亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化事业有限公司,2002年版,第299-300页。
123高凤仙：《亲属法：理论与实务》,台湾：五南图书出版有限公司,2008年第八版,第189-190页。
124宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港、澳、台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版,第378页。
125台湾民法新增订第1052条第1款。2009年4月14日三读通过,4月29日公布。
126《澳门民法典》第1628条。
127《澳门民法典》第1630条。
128澳门法中,所谓诉讼离婚,显然是指片意诉讼离婚,不包括合意诉讼离婚。后者依澳门民法典第1629条之规定,归于两愿离婚类型。
129澳门法中,所谓调解,仅指和好、撤诉,换言之,仅指调解和好之结果而非整个纠纷解决过程、程序。《澳门民法典》第1629条第2款等规定可辅证此结论：依该款规定,如调解不成,法官应应尽量促使双方达成离婚之合意,从而将诉讼离婚转为两愿离婚(非讼程序之两愿诉讼离婚和由登记局局长宣布之两愿离婚),调解与转化均不成之后才予以诉讼裁判。而且,正因为如此,在澳门自然也就不存在所谓“法院调解离婚”之情形。
130澳门《民事登记法典》第205条第3款规定：“《民事诉讼法典》第一千二百四十三条至一千二百四十六条之规定,经作出必要配合后,适用于本程序。”
131有观点认为,“澳门登记离婚中的调解制度,一方面要求登记机关不遗余力将婚姻关系还没有彻底破裂的当事人拉回婚姻之中,另一方面对于离意已定的当事人也可以帮助他们达成更趋公平的离婚协议”。参见谭桂珍：“论澳门
134说明,本文中,凡未为特别表明的,子女一词均是指“末成年子女”。
135《联合国儿童权利公约》第12条明确规定：“1.缔约国应确保有主见能力的儿童有权对影响到其本人的一切事项自由发表自己的意见,对儿童的意见应按照其年龄和成熟程度给以适当的看待。2.为此目的,儿童特别应有机会在影响到儿童的任何司法和行政诉讼中,以符合国家法律的诉讼规则的方式,直接或通过代表或适当机构陈述意见。”我国1990年签署加入该公约,其于1992年4月2日对我国生效。
136 See William J. Howe and Hugh Mclsaac, Including Children in Family Law Proceedings-International Perspectives: Finding the Balance: Ethical Challenges and Best Practices for Lawyers Presenting Parents when the Interests of Children as Stake.46 Fam.Ct.Rev.78
137 See Donald T. Saposnek, Working with Children in Mediation, in Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem ed., Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.185-179; Melissa J. Schoffer, Bringing Children to the Mediation Table,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.323.
138在我国,曾经有一个时期,离异父母(通常是带着孩子的父亲)再婚比较困难,子女被认为是“拖油瓶”。有部记不清名字的此题材电影中,幼小的女孩将爸爸每次相亲失败的原因归结于自己的存在,每次在父亲与女方见面时就“自觉”地出外流浪。电影《小花》中,养母再怎么伤害她,她始终渴望养母的接受,一次又一次的坚持。这些真切地表明子女意愿的脆弱与敏感,子女需要的特殊性。
139 See Karen K. Irvin, Including Children in Mediation: Considerations for the Mediator, in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.94-107.
140不同家事调解模式对于子女在调解中的角色定位,参见附录1、2表格内容。
145子女参与调解背后的文化因素的考量,可参见Donald T. Saposnek, The Value of Children in Mediation: A Cross-cultural Perspective, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4, summer 1994, pp.325-342.
148宋朝武等：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第181-182页。
156 Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces: A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2, p.68.
157例如1925年《幼年子女法》的颁布宣告母亲对子女监护与父亲享有同等的权利,随后的“母亲优先”(maternal preference presumption)推定原则、“幼年”推定原则(tender years presumption)则使得母亲逐渐占据主导地位,直到1970年美国加尼弗尼亚州《1970年家事法法令》实行性别中立立场时才得以取消。。还有其他一些主要原则,例如主要照料者推定原则、维持现状原则等等。具体可参见夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第283-286页；Sophy Bordow, Defended Custody Cases in the Family Court of Australia: Factors Influencing the Outcome,(1994) Australian Journal of Family Law 252
158参见余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版,第479-480页：朱凡：“现代监护法发展趋势及热点问题比较研究”,《重庆大学学报》(社科版),2004年第3期,等。
159关于父母行为对监护、探望判决的影响,可参见夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第286-288、第300-301页。
160 See Robin Drapkin, and Florence Bienenfeld, "The Power of Including Children in Custody Mediation", in Craig A. Everett (Ed.), divorce mediation:perspectives on the field, The Waworth Press, Inc.1985, pp.63-65.
161 See Ernest A. Sanchez & Sherrie Kibler-Sanchez, Empowering Children in Mediation,42(3) Fam. Ct. Rev.554-57, (2004).
162 See Judge Leonard Edwards(ret), Comments on the Miller Commission Report: A California Perspective, Pace Law Review, Vol.27, pp.657-658.
163 See Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation, London:Sweet& Maxwell,1997, pp.68-70.
164 Id,p.70.
165其具体如下：加尼弗尼亚州、特拉华州、弗罗里达州、夏威夷州、爱达荷州、肯塔基州、内华达州、南达科他州、犹他州、威斯康辛州、亚利桑那州(专门子女监护)、缅因州(专门子女监护)、北卡罗来纳州(专门子女监护)以及宾夕法尼亚州(部分地区)、华盛顿州(部分地区)。See Carrie-Anne Tondo et al., Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV.431,445(2001).
166 See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.325-326.
167 See Joan B. Kelly, Psychological and Legal Interventions for Parents and Children in Custody and Access Disputes: Current Research and Practice,10 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L.129, p.137 (2002).
168例如在北美,随着20世纪末兴起的“祖父母权利”运动,理论中开始对祖父母探望孙子女纠纷提供家事调解相关事宜进行探讨。See Edwad Kruk, Grandparent Visitation Disputes: Multigenerational Approaches to Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.l,1994, pp.37-53.
169家庭关系中心具体情况可参见Partick Parkison, Keeping in contact: the role of family relationship centres in Australia, Child and Family LawQuarterly, Vol.18, No.2,2006, pp.157-174;陈苇、胡苷用：“离婚诉讼前处理子女抚养纠纷的一种新机制——澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’评介及其启示”,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,2007年第4期。
170澳大利亚以子女为中心、子女参与型调解具体情况可参见如下一系列文章：Mclntosh, Jennifer E, Wells,Yvonne D; Long, Caroline M, Child-focused and Child-inclusive Family Law Dispute Resolution: One Year Findings from a Prospective Study of Outcomes, Journal of Family Studies, May/Jun 2007, Vol.13, Issue 1, pp 8-25; Boyhan, Patricia A; Gemer, Francesca J T, "Doing What It Takes": A Family Dispute Resolution Case Study Using a Multidisciplinary Approach, Journal of Family Studies, Nov.2007, Vol.13, Issue 2, pp 236-244;Hewlett, Bill, Accessing the Parental Ming Through the Heart: A Case Study in Child Inclusive Mediation, Journal of Family Studies, May/Jun 2007, Vol.13, Issue 1, pp 94-103; Moloney, Banu, Sharing the Parenting after Separating: A 10-year-old'S Tips for Dealing with Differences, Journal of Family Studies, 12(2), pp 277-280; Moloney, Lawrie, Child-sensitive Practices in High-conflict Parenting Disputes:A 30 Year Road to Serious Reform, Journal of Family Studies,12(1),pp 37-56, etc.
171 See Patti Bertschler, and Thomas O'Reilly, Elder Mediation:Finding Family Balance when Caregiver Roles Reverse, First published in the Akron Life & Leisure Magazine, view this article at: http://www.ncsmediation.com/articles/elder_medi-iation.html/2009-11-12.
172 Arline Kardasis and Blair Trippe, Elder and Family Mediation Services, at: http://www.longtermcarelink.net/elder care/-elder mediation.htm/2009-11-11.
173相关著述、国际性、地区性研讨会不断增多。著作方面,比较有代表性的有：Patti Bertschler and Laurette Cocklin, TRUCE! Using Elder Mediation to Resolve Conflict among Families, Seniors and Organizations, NCS Publishing,2004; John Bertschler and Patti Bertschler, Elder Mediation: A New Solution to Age-Old Problems, NCS Publishing,2009.
174法案于2007年通过,但具体施行由后续法规决定(第112条)。该省相关机关正就相关法规向社会征集意见。See http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/current_Consultations.htm.
Elder and Guardianship Mediation project of Canadian Centre for Elder Law, at: http://www.bcli.org/ccel/projects/elder-and-guardianship-mediation#tabs-projects-1/2009-11-12.
176 See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.399-401.
177 See National Care Planning Council,2008, S. Oliver,2008.
178 Anthony J. Serra, Esq., Using Elder Mediation in Adult Guardianship Cases: A New Approach for the Court Appointed Attorney, at: http://www.eldermediationcenter.com/pg10.cfm/2009-11-12. 179 Fiske, J.A. Marital Mediation as Another Helpful Path. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,1997, December 8. 180 Laurie Israel, Mediation to Stay Married- A Technique with Promise,2007; Laurie Israel, FAQs About Me Stay Married,2007; Laurie Israel, Governor Sanford - Give Marital Mediation a Try!,2009; John Fiske, Marital Mediation for Family Mediators,2009, view all these articles at: www.mediate.com.
181对此,有文章十分形象地使用了“突然有一天醍醐灌顶般地领悟到帮助当事人维持婚姻关系的重要性”表述。See Susan K. Boardman, John Fiske, Laurie Israel, and Ken Neumann, Marital Mediation:An Emerging Area of Practice, May 2009, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/maritalmediationl.cfm/2009-12-11。
183日常生活司空见惯的多是不少配偶,特别是年轻一代,常因琐碎事情争吵,互不妥协,继而将矛盾上升到人品、感情的高度,冲动之下即主张离婚,事后冷静思考,倍觉后悔,但出于“面子”观念,双方均不愿率先承认错误或者是采取道歉等弥补关系裂痕之行为；也有一些离婚是由于对方性格差异(或者一方或双方存在一些性格瑕疵),不能彼此包容、体谅或是自省、改正,久而久之,在争吵和僵持中失去耐性：还有一些婚姻是存在误解、不满却很少交流、沟通：还有的是夫妻一方或双方与其他家庭成员(如婆媳之间)产生矛盾,在无法调和情况下,夫妻关系很容易成为漩涡或说是症结的中心,前者难以解决,后者倒是容易处理,一刀下去,劳燕分飞。总之,婚姻关系危机可能是是一方、双方或者家庭以及社会因素(比如说第三者插足或是插手、实行情感利益双重引诱等等所造成。
184关于当前离婚,夏吟兰老师将其总结为八个字“自由有余、限制不足”。其具体论述,详见夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版,第46-47页等。
185 Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002, p.106.
186 Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2, p.136.
187 Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2, pp.133-141.
188 Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties' Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.211-214.
189需要说明的是,此处东方传统,主要是从调解文化角度而论,是指受儒家文化影响之“东方国家”及其调解传统。
190参见[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第52-69页。本部分论述均以其为参照。
191参见张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论从》(第7卷),北京：法律出版社,1997年版,第150-154页。我们认为,与其说该论述完全适用离婚等家事纠纷解决,还不如说其因较为全面、准确地分析和把握了以家事(民间)纠纷为主要对象的东方传统调解的基本内涵与主要特征而成为我们必须予以关注的内容。相比于探讨家事纠纷特殊性、家事纠纷解决特别程序的西方现代家事调解而言,该理论的家事属性显然并不直接,也不突出。
192棚濑孝雄先生认为,教化型的概念是亨得逊通过对日本江户时期的审判进行分析后提出来的。参见Dan Henderson, Conciliation and Japanese Law: Tokugawa and Modern (University of Washington Pres,1965),转引自[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠 纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第64页。事实上,此概念的明确提出或许是始于亨得逊,但教化这一特征显然是中国传统伦理法(包括民间调解)的基本内涵,或者说是深受儒家文化影响的整个东亚共同的因子,对此容后细述。
193正是这一点使得调解在西方发展之初饱受指责。不少学者认为其非正式性难以保障公正、可能破坏法制统一,因而强烈反对。众所周知,在中国,随着改革开放,调解发展进程中同样遭遇此等待遇。法制、司法的片面强调使得调解的性质定位模糊,实践中的功能也因而大打折扣。
194需要指出的是：通过与美国之比较,作者本人倾向于将“增强当事人自主决策”作为调解发展的“长期性展望”。参见[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第51-52页。
196中国司法调解发展例外,我们认为,其实质上是对法律的界定存在特殊性。对此,中国调解部分再述。
197西方ADR之A存在不同解释：替代、可选择,适当的,等等。澳大利亚家庭法令中,调解名称之变化更是典型：其最初称为ADR,后改为PDR,取“主要、基本”之意,再后来仍觉不妥,于是去掉前缀,直接称为DR。由此可见一斑。
198 S Robert, "Three models of family mediation", in R Dingwall and Eekelaar (eds), Divorce Mediation and the Legal Process,1988, p.144.
199此分类有三模式说：结构型、治疗型与劳务管理型,参见Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.49-63;也有在前三的基础上加上信息与沟通型,并称四模式,参见Andrew 1. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation:Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.211-227; Beck, C. J. A.& Sales, B. D. Family mediation:Facts, myths and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,2001, p.9-11.
200 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.104-145.
201 Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem (ed.), Divorce and Family Mediation:Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.29-128; Laurence Boulle. Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition). LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia,2005, p.43-47.
202莫顿·多伊奇主张冲突可通过制度性讨论(如集体谈判、司法制度)、专业人士(如调解员、法官)、社会准则(公平、正义等)、谈判规则(谈判之起合、日程表等)以及特定程序设计(沟通、会见等)等社会结构性因素予以限制和掌控。冲突解决应具备若干前提,如当事人自愿参与、承诺遵守规则并接受由此产生之结果。See Morton Deutsch. Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press,1973, pp.372-395.203家事调解协会面向律师和高级心理健康专业人士之调解培训包括两部分：(1)5-7天的密集培训,内容包括调解基础理论(冲突理论等)、结构型调解流程与技能、实务探讨等模块；(2)250小时的督导实习。
204 Coogler O.J. Structured Mediation in Divorce Settlement: A Handbook for Marital Mediators. Lexington, Mass.:D.C. Heath.1978.
205该手册为突出实用性,删减了大部分理论论述。因作者1982年即去世,故该模式之基础理论由其弟子Sarah ChildsGrebe等人具体阐述与完善。详见Sarah Childs Grebe. "Building on structures mediation:An integrated model for global mediation of separation and divorce". Mediation Quarterly,1994, Vol.12, No.1, p.15.
206 Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.49-50.
207 See: Marital mediation rules of FMA. In Joan Blades, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,1985, pp.136-143.
208法律建议之举措在结构型调解实施之初曾一度受指责,因为其对律师为双方代理人提供法律服务之角色定位对传统律师角色形成挑战,后来,随着律师角色多样化以及家事调解的“司法化”,该制度才逐渐得到获得认同。See: Sarah Childs Grebe, "Structured mediation and its variants: What makes it unique?" In J. Folberg & A. Milne (eds.), Divorce Mediation: Theory and Practice. New York: Guilford Press,1988.
209 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.119.
210美国著名家事调解专家(1932-1999),Haynes调解培训学院主席、家事调解员学会(Academy of family mediators)创始人兼首任主席。其主要著作有Divorce Mediation: A practical guide for therapist and counselors, (New York: Spring, 1981)、Mediating Divorce: A casebook of I successful for family negotiations (San Francisco:Jossey Boss,1989)、The Fundamental of Family Mediation (State University of New York Press,1994)等。
211 Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation:Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, p.216.
212 Vanderkooi, L., & Pearson, J. Mediating divorce disputes: Mediator behaviors, styles and rules, Family Relations, Vol.32, No.4,1983,pp.577-566.
213 Susan M. Brown, "Models of mediation", in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediation, USA:Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.57.
214存在家庭暴力情形时,家事纠纷是否能够调解一直是理论争议的焦点,在美国各州立法对此规定也不一。即使可以调解,应采取何种形式,仍然存在诸多不同意见。对此,详见相关章节论述。
215 Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces: A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2, p.69
216 Haynes J.M., The Fundamental of Family Mediation, New York: State University of New York Press,1994, pp.61-63.
217[英]迈克尔·努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨丽华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版,第9页。
218 Hanson James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.50-51.
219有的坚持始终让子女参与,有的持反对意见,还有的认为应具体判断。详见Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.217.
220[加]岳云(Howard H. Irving)编著：《家事调解：适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第90页。
22’有的认为,还包括策略、结构功能模式等分支形态,详见Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2002, p.126-127.
222 Howard H. Irving博士,中文名岳云,加拿大多伦多法学工作学院兼法学院教授,著名的实务治疗家和家事调解员,治疗型家事调解模式的先驱,加拿大家事调解委员会发起人、前主席。
223 Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Services to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2, pp.115-116.
224参见Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation: Contemporary Issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995.pp.151-152其另一种说法是五阶段,即调解评估、调解准备、谈判、终止和跟进。See Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Helping Families Resolve Conflict, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,2002, pp.36-40。
225调解员此时应主要扮演三个角色：程序之协调者、问题解决之建议者、当事人状况之评估与干预者。倘若干预失败,其通常表明是评估失误,因此可返回调节准备阶段。Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Services to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 124-125.
226 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.124.当然也有观点认为治疗性调解适用于大多数一般家事纠纷。Beth M. Erickson, Therapeutic Mediation:A Saner Way of Disputing, Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,1997, Vol.14, p.261.
227 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.128.
228 See Michael Benjamin and Howard H. Irving, Toward a Feminist-informed Model of Therapeutic Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly,1992, Vol.10, No.2, pp.129-152.
229 Marsha Kilne Pruett and Janet R. Johnston, "Therapeutic Mediation with High-conflict Parents: Effective Models and Strategies", In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.93.
230 Robert E. Emery, David Sbarra and Tara Grover, Divorce Mediation:Research and Reflection,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.22; Robert A. Hahn and David M. Kleist, Divorce Mediation:Research and Reflection for Family and Couples Counselling, The Family Journal,2000, Vol.8, No.2, pp.165-171; Kelly, J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and Conciliation Courts Review,1996, Vol.34, pp.373-385.
231 See Johnston J. and Roseby,In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997; Johnston J. and Campbell L. Impasse of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Conflict, New York: Simon and Schuster,1988.
232 Johnston J. and Roseby,In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997, p.238.
233 See: Black, M., and Joffee W., A Lawyer/Therapist Team Approach to Divorce, Conciliation and Courts Review, 1978, Vol.16, No.l, pp.1-5; Joseph L. Steinberg, Towards an Interdisciplinary Commitment: A Divorce Lawyer Pro poses Attorney-Therapist Marriages or, at the Least, an Affair, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 6 Is sue 3, pp.259-268; Jan Mark Dudman, Co-Mediation with Attorney and Marriage Family Therapist, at: http://www.d ivorcenet.com/states/california/comediation with attorney and family therapist/2009-12-12.
234拍有观点形象地将此分类、这些名称比喻为“标签(1abels)”,总结自身工作与特点,区别其他类型的一个标志。参见Bernard Mayer, Facilitative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.29.
235该术语由Leonard Riskin最先明确提出。其后Lesson和Johnston、Phillips以及Zumeta等对促成型调解予以各自不同的界定。See Leonard Riskin, Mediator Orientations, Strategies, Techniques, Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 1994, Vol.12,No.9, pp.111-114; Lesson and Johnston, Ending it: Dispute Resolution in America: Description, Examples, Cases, and Questions, Cincinnati, OH:Anderson,1998, pp.133-134; Phillips, B. A. The Mediation Field Guide: Transcending Litigation and Resolving Conflicts in Your Business or Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2001, p.170; Zena Zumeta, Styles of Mediation:Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/zumeta.cfm/2009-10-10.
236 See Bernard Mayer, Facilitative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, p.32-33.
237范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第100页。
238促成型调解是典型的程序性调解模式,其并不关注的案件实质性内容,也不对案件利弊发表具体意见。尽管其也提供批评性分析,也采取一些策略鼓励当事人和解。转化型调解则更是严格以当事人自主决策为中心,严重遵循中立性。 See Bush and Folger, The Promise of mediation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1994, p.81.
239 Riskin, L. L. Understanding Mediators'Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed. Harford Negotiation Law Review, Vol.1, pp.7-51; L. Randolph Lowery, Evaluative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.80-84.
240 See Alfini, J. J., and Glay, G. S. Should Lawyer Mediators Be Prohibited from Providing Legal Advice or Evaluations? Dispute Resolution Magazine,1994, Vol.1, pp.8-9; Love, L.P. The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should not Evaluate, Florida State University Law Review,1997, Vol.24, pp.937-948, etc.
241关于其不足或“危险性”可参见L. Randolph Lowery, Evaluative Mediation, In Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004, pp.74-76.
242认为其给予调解员太多权力干涉、施压或者操弄过程,不仅“剥夺了当事人相互面对、通过自己的努力寻求纠纷解决的道德自治的机会”,面且由此达成的结果的持久性也很值得怀疑。当然,该观点也强烈反对那种由调解员指导当事人形成解决方案的指导性调解,强调发挥当事人自主性的作用,认为应避免调解员介入当事人对厉害价值以及解决问题方案的思考。参见范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第100页。
243该观点认为：纠纷解决的关键是人(纠纷当事人)而非问题(争执及相关事宜)；调解应以转化当事人为重心(积极促使其转变消极认识与态度),而不是以问题解决为目标、以程序为中心。See R Baruch Bush and J Folger, The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Ball,1994.244许多调解员认同该模式之理念,原因在于：(1)传统调解模式不仅功能上存在诸多不足,而且适用范围有限。更为关键的是,其并不能解释不能适用的原因。(2)经验表明,当事人的态度才是问题解决的前提和关键。See Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002, pp.131-132.
245 Robert A Baruch Bush and Sally Ganong Pope, Changing the Quality of Conflict Interaction:The Principles and Practice of Transformative Mediation, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal,2002, Vol.3:67.
246冲突转化理论认为,冲突通常导致冲突者产生虚弱感(sense of weakness,如失控感、精神混乱、怀疑、犹豫不决等)并因此“以自我为中心”(self-absorption,如过于敏感、超强自我保护意识、多疑、对对方观点抱通常敌对、专横)。因此,必须逆转这一下旋局面,使其由弱变强(strong)、从自我为中心转变为积极与他人联络、沟通、回应成为“再认”。帮助当事人实现这种转化即转化型调解所追求的主要目标。See Bush, R. A. B. What do We Need a (responsive)。冲突转化理论中,外界干预、帮助使其由弱到强的转化称为“增权”,从自我中心到积极回应的转化Mediator? Mediation's Value-added for Negotiation. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol.12, pp.1-36; Bech, A. T. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence, New York: HarperCollins,1999; Goleman, D.
Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury,1995; Della Noce, D. J. Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in
Mediation, Negotiation Journal,1999, Vol.15, No.3, pp.271-301. 247 See M Dewdney, Transformative Mediation: Implications for Practitioners,2001,12 ADRJ 20.
248该模式目前仅有一些概念或观点性的程序操作指引,例如Folger和Bush提出的“当事人自主决策”、“面谈互动”等概念,详见Folger J.& Bush. R. Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice, Mediation Quarterly,1995, Vol.13, No.2, pp.263-278.
249叙事疗法由澳大利亚的Michael White和新西兰的David Epston等人于20世纪70、80年代首创, 并发起影响深远的“叙事”运动。例如其主张“问题的外化”：人一旦与问题清楚分开,即能观察问题与人的互动,究竟是谁对谁的影响更大：人的生活就是展现其真实生活经验的故事,一旦两者不一致,必然会产生问题。因而重述便成为问题解
决的关键、治疗的主角。参见Michael White and David Epston, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, New York: W. W. Norton & Company,1990; White, M. Maps of narrative practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,2007。
250 See: John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,2000; John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Practicing Narrative Mediation: Loosening the Grip of Conflict, CA: Jossey-Bass,2008, etc.
251 Toran Hansen, The Narrative Approach to Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansenT/2009-10-12. theoretical shifts and practical demands,[19951 WkoLRev 5.
252 John Winslade and Richard Cohen, Narrative Mediation:Waikato mediation service's answer to community concerns,
253也有点观点认为这种模式实际上抛弃了一般调解所要求的中立性。See J Millen and S Cobb, "Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality", (1991) 9 Mediation Quarterly 151.
254 Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution: Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p.137.
255依迈克尔·努尼的说法,“调解是利益导向性、问题解决导向性的,从而避免了身份导向性的谈判。”参见[英]迈克尔·努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,法律出版社,2006年版,第7页。
256不以和好为目标并非是说其不鼓励和好,调解程序设置之本身客观上就给了纠纷当事人一个和好的机会。换言之,为当事人创造和好机会是任何家事调解模式的基本目标之一。参见Howard H. Irving, Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation:Helping families resolve conflict,2002, p.17。其只是让当事人自行和好,而不是劝说、强迫当事人接受这一结果,后果显然有违背形式公正、中立以及当事人自主决策之嫌。
257调解中,谈判通常都是建立在如下假设前提基础之上：纠纷当事人能够理性思考与行为：其对纷争事项清楚了解：对“理想”结果有较好的认识；明确自己的立场。Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation: Contemporary issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995, pp.165.
258此处之“域外”,是指中国大陆法域之外。而且,其不仅包括外国,也包括我国其他三法域(港澳台地区)。
259 See Joan Blade, Family Mediation:Cooperative Divorce Settlement, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1985, pp.32-33.
260 See Hanson, James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985, pp.4-5.
261 See Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel & Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States,39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431.
262 See ALA. CODE § 6-6-20; Mediation Rule 4, 11 and 15.
263 See CAL. FAM. CODE § 3170-3181; CAL. APP SUPP. R.7.land R.10.84.
264法条内容,参见陈苇主编：《加拿大家庭法汇编》,北京：群众出版社,2006年版,第50-51、150-151页等。
265参见魁北克《民事诉法典》第814.3-814.14条、第815.2-815.5条、第827.2-827.3条、第973条之规定。
268 See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "The Family Justice Project- A Project to Develop Comparative Proposals for the Reform of the Family Justice Services in British Columbia" (1994); "Family Justice Reform Pilot Project Evaluation" (1995).
269需要说明的是,在美国与加拿大等英美法系国家,家事不仅包括私法纠纷还包括一些公法纠纷,例如政府儿童保护部门在涉及子女被虐待、忽视时依职权介入,对子女安全与利益予以保护。此种纠纷亦可适用调解,即子女福利调解或者子女保护调解。其调解类似于家事调解,但调解员需经特殊训练、以子女利益保护为首要目标、调解主体多元化,不仅是子女父母(监护人)以及政府委任指导员(通常为社会工作者,协议应经其同意),满一定年龄的子女、咨询员以及顾问亦可参与调解。该调解在加拿大十分兴盛,各省不仅建立专门的子女保护调解员名册,面且对该调解予以法律援助支持。See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "Child Protection Mediation in British Columbia", March 2009; Linda Crush, When Mediation Fails Child Protection:Lessons for the Future,23 Can. J. Fam. L.5, 2007. etc.
270 See Alberta Law Reform Institute, Court-connected Family Mediation Programs in Canada, Rresearch paper No.20, May 1994.
271 See Bill 65, an act to institute, under the code of civil procedure, pre-hearing mediation in family law cases and to other provisions of the code, Cited from Sandra A. Goundry et al, Family Mediation in Canada: Implications for Women's Equality, p.29, available at: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/.
272有关“调解通知”的具体内容,参见卑诗省依据《法律与衡平法令》(Law and Equity Act)制定的《(家事)调解通知条例》(Notice to mediate (family) Regulation, B.C.Reg.296/2007)。
273 See Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, "Evaluation of the Family Mediation Practicum Project", June 2005.
274欧洲家事调解兴起之社会背景,可参见Janet Walker, Introduction to Family Mediation in Europe and its Special Characteristics and Advantages, Report article for the 4th European Conference on Family Law, October 1998.
275关于欧洲家事法现代化中当事人自主决策权的地位(the role of self-determination in the modernization of family law in Europe) I司题,国际家庭法协会2003年欧洲地区性会议曾专门以议题予以探讨,并在2006年出版专题论文集。
276 See Miquel Martin Casals, Divorce Mediation in Europe: An Introductory Outline, Electronic journal of Comparative Law, Vol.9, No.2,2005.
279 See Council of Europe, Concept Paper of the 7th European Conference on Family Law on International Family Mediation, CONF-FL (2009)1.
280需要说明的是,因苏格兰、北爱尔兰家事法制的特殊性,本文所称英国,主要是指英格兰与威尔士地区。
281 See Janet A. Walker, Family Mediation in England: Strategies for Gaining Acceptance, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4, 1991 pp.254-255.
285 Marian Roberts, Family Mediation:The Development of the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.22, No.4,2005, p.516.
286 See Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce-The Government's Proposals, Command Paper,2799, 1995.
287英国《1996年家庭法法令》第8、13、14条关于离婚与分居纠纷调解之规定、第26-29条关于家事案件申请法律援助的强制调解规定,参见蒋月等译：《英国婚姻家庭制定法选集》,北京：法律出版社2008年版,第233-234、236-237、140-242页。
See Gwynn Davis et al., Monitoring Publicly Funded Family Mediation, London, Fam Law 29 (625).
291 See Jane Robey, Family Mediation: The Future and NFM, [2009] Fam Law 747; Nigel Fricher QC, Mediation-The Way Forward, Fam Law 29 (826).
292[英]凯特斯丹德利：《家庭法》,屈广清译,北京：中国政法大学出社,2004年版,第12页。
293 Elizabeth Walsh, Publicly Funded Family Mediation: the Way Forward, [2008] Fam Law 1144.
294 See Lisa Parkinson, Developing International Family Mediation and Harmonizing Standards, CONF-FL-SP (2009) 2 E.
295早期法国家事调解组织的发展情况,参见Benoit Bastard and Laura Cardia-voneche, Family Mediation in France, International Journal of Law and the Family, Vol.7, No.3, pp.271-281.
296 See Nathalie Riomet, The State of Affairs of Mediation in Europe: What can Governments Do (More)? The French Approach:Legal and Practical Aspects, Article for Programme International Expert Meeting, June 2006.
297 See Elisa Guiraud Terrier, Challengea of Training in International Family Mediation in the Light of Experience of the "DIPLOME D'ETAT" in International Family Mediation, CONF-FL-SP (2009) 13 E.
298 See Deborah Macfarlane, Family Mediation in France, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.10, No.3,2004, p.97.
302家事法院促进和解的义务、婚姻咨询服务以及相关人员(包括律师等法律工作者)非讼服务信息告知义务等至今仍然是1975年家庭法的重要内容,如第10B-10E条对家事咨询之规定、第3A章关于非讼服务信息告知之规定、第3B章关于法院促进和解、鼓励和指示当事人参与非讼纠纷解决项目之规定等,其具体内容可参见陈苇等译：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社,2009年版,第53-72页。
303卫洁：“澳大利亚家庭法的家事调解制度对我国的启示”,《山西农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2007年第2期,第207页。
304澳大利亚家事调解员等家事纠纷从业人员的资质认证、条件以及登记等,详见《1984年家庭法条例》第4A章“认证规则”之具体规定。
309参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第14条第2款、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第171条之规定。
310参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第19条之规定。
311新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第14条第1款、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第172条第1款均明确规定,调解会议应由家事法院法官主持；《1980年家事程序法》第16条、《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第177条均规定,主持调解的法官有权参与任何随后产生之诉讼程序,除非法官,主动或依当事人中请,觉得其不适宜继续参与随后审理或者当事人有充分理由表明应有其他法官审理。
312参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第15、17条之规定。
313也有文章认为“调解会议不是诉讼程序”,“如果调解不成,该法官也不得充任审判官”显然与法律规定不符。参见张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,载《法学研究》第19卷第3期：张晓茹：“家事裁判制度研究”,中国政法大学博士论文,第67页。
314依2005年7月1日开始实施之((2004年子女照料法》之规定,现已改为日常照料
315参见新西兰《1980年家事程序法》第13条之规定。
316参见新西兰《1989年儿童、青年人及其家庭法》第170条之规定。
338日本学者不同观点以及各派观点主要代表人物,参见邓学仁、严祖照、高一书：((DNA鉴定——亲子关系争端之解决》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年版,第114-116页。
339[日]小岛武司：“家事法院的诉讼法意义”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版,第243页。
340有学者专门对中日家事调停进行了比较,认为两国相关制度存在如下不同：一是调解的“相位”不同：日本采取的是家事调解前置,而我国则是诉讼调解：二是调解的构架不同,例如日本仅有裁判所的调停,而我国既有诉讼外调解,也有诉讼调解：日本有家事法院并配备有专业的调查官和心理专家等,裁判与调查相结合,而我国家事调解在人员、程序的专业性上尚待提高：日本家事调停的实施者是民间的调停委员和家庭裁判所的裁判官,而我国诉讼外调解与诉讼调解各自独立运行；等等；三是调解判断的基准不同,日本调解以条理为主要判断基准,其是社会生活的根本理念,“公序良俗”、信义诚实的原则是“条理”的表现形式,其适用必须以实体法为指导。作为调停规范的条理,只要不违反法律强制性的规定,可以排除任意法规的约束：而中国情理法相结合,通过道德解释法律,并起到宣传、教育的作用。参见李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期,第87-88页。
341此部分内容,参阅了关伟康：“香港家庭调解简史”,[加]岳云(Howard H. Irving)编著：《家庭调解—适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版,第37-54页。
356具体内容,可参见台湾地区2008年3月27日施行之“地方法院办理家事调解事件实施要点”。
357参见宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港澳台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版,第368页。
382参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版,第417-424页。
383有学者将20世纪80年代婚姻家庭案件新情况总结为如下六点：离婚案件逐年上升；草率离婚与第三者介入引发离婚案件增多；“高价离婚”(暴发户另结新欢,以钱买同意)现象凸显；出国热引发离婚纠纷多；中老年人离婚案件增多；离婚案件中子女抚养与财产分割情况愈加复杂。参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的审判工作》(下),北京：当代中国出版社,1993年版,第40-43页。
384参见《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版,第439页。
385参见高洪宾：《民事调解的理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版,第45-46页。
390高洪宾：《民事调解理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版,第82页。
406就笔者所搜集资料,有关离婚调解或婚姻家庭纠纷调解的论述主要有如下：如夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版；“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”课题组(夏吟兰主持)：“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”,中国法学会婚姻家庭法学会研究会2009年年会论文：蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版,第344-345页；.蒋月：“构建婚姻家庭诉讼司法调解制度”,《甘肃社会科学》,2008年第1期：第37-40页：张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第7卷,第166-167页：陈爱武：“家事调解：比较借鉴与制度重构”,《法学》2007年第6期,第137-138页；陈群峰：《离婚利益协调机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版,第116-129页,等。
413此表内容摘自Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Changes in Parties' Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.224-225.
414此表内容摘自Laurence Boulle, Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition), Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths,2005, p.44.
415此表主要由Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel & Bethany Drucker "Mediation Trends: A Survey of the States" (39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431)文统计表格及其内容整理而成。
[1]范愉主编：《ADR原理与实务》,厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002年版。
[2]陈苇：《澳大利亚家庭法(2008年修正)》,北京：群众出版社,2009年版。
[3][加]岳云编著：《家庭调解——适用于华人家庭的理论与实践》,苌英丽、王振福、袁菊花译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005年版。
[4]宋朝武：《调解立法研究》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008年版。
[5]江伟主编：《民事诉讼法学原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999年版。
[6]辛国清：《法院附设替代性纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008年版。
[7]王亚新：《社会变革中的民事诉讼法》,北京：中国法制出版社,2001年版。
[8]陈群峰：《离婚利益协调机制研究——财产、子女及其他》,北京：人民法院出版社,2008年版。
[9][美]斯蒂芬B戈尔德堡等：《纠纷解决——谈判、调解和其他机制》,蔡彦敏等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
[10][英]迈克尔努尼：《法律调解之道》,杨利华、于丽英译,北京：法律出版社,2006年版。
[11]常怡主编：《中国调解制度》,重庆：重庆出版社,1990年版。
[12]余延满：《亲属法原论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年版。
[13]杨大文主编：《亲属法》,北京：法律出版社,2004年版。
[14]陈苇主编：《外国婚姻家庭法比较研究》,北京：群众出版社2006年版。
[15]陈苇：《中国婚姻家庭法立法研究》(第二版),北京：群众出版社,2010年版
[16]夏吟兰：《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
[17]戴炎辉、戴东雄：《亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化有限公司,2004年版。
[18]史尚宽：《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
[19]戴炎辉、戴东雄：《中国亲属法》,台湾：顺清文化事业有限公司,2002年版。
[20]高凤仙：《亲属法：理论与实务》,台湾：五南图书出版有限公司,2008年第八版。
[21]宋豫、陈苇主编：《中国大陆与港、澳、台婚姻家庭法比较研究》,重庆：重庆出版社,2002年版。
[22]杨润时主编：《最高人民法院民事调解工作司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版 社,2004年版。
[23]范愉：《非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版。
[24]高凤仙：《家庭暴力防治法规专论》,台湾：五南图书出版社有限公司,1998年版。
[25][美]博西格诺等：《法律之门》,邓子滨译,北京：华夏出版社2002年版。
[26]黄松有主编：《婚姻法司法解释的理解与适用》,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版。
[27]黄松有主编：《最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)的理解与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2004年版。
[28]万鄂湘主编：《婚姻法理论与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版
[29]杨大文、龙翼飞主编：《婚姻家庭法学》,北京：中国人民大学出版社2006年版。
[30]陈爱武：《人事诉讼程序研究》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[31][德]奥特马·尧厄尼希：《民事诉讼法》,周翠译,北京：法律出版社2003年版。
[32]王洪：《从身份到契约》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版。
[33]蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版。
[34]邓学仁：《DNA鉴定—亲子关系争端之解决》(2007年修订版),台北：元照出版有限公司,2006年第二版。
[35][英]伯特兰·罗素：《婚姻革命》,靳建国译,北京：东方出版社,1988年版。
[36][日]利谷信义：《离婚法学会学》,陈明侠、许继华译,北京：北京大学出版社,1991年版。
[37][加]罗德里克·菲利普斯：《分道扬镳—离婚简史》,李公昭译,北京：中国对外翻译出版有限公司,1998年版。
[38]夏吟兰：《离婚自由与限制论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。
[39][日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,王亚新译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年。
[40]陈苇主编：《加拿大家庭法汇编》,北京：群众出版社,2006年版。
[41]蒋月等：《英国婚姻家庭制定法选集》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[42][日]川岛武宜：《现代化与法》,王志安等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
[43]邓学仁、严祖照、高一书：《DNA鉴定——亲子关系争端之解决》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年版。
[44]赵文宗等：《中国内地、香港婚姻法实务》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版。
[45]邓丽：《婚姻法中的个人自由与社会正义——以婚姻契约论为中心》,北京：知识产权出版社,2008年版。
[46][美]黄宗智：《清代的法律、社会与文化：民法的表达与实践》,上海：上海书店出版社,2001年版。
[47][美]吉尔伯特罗兹曼主编：《中国的现代化》,国家社会科学基金“比较现代化”课题组译, 江苏人民出版社,1988年版。
[48]闫庆霞：《法院调解制度研究》,北京：中国公安大学出版社,2008年版。
[49][美]黄宗智：《过去和现在：中国民事法律实践的探索》,北京：法律出版社,2009年版。
[50]董磊明：《宋村的调解：巨变时代的权威与秩序》,北京：法律出版社,2008年版。
[51]《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的司法行政工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1995年版。
[52]《当代中国》丛书编辑委员会：《当代中国的审判工作》,北京：当代中国出版社,1993年版。
[53]刘世杰、刘亚林：《离婚审判研究》,重庆：重庆大学出版社,1998年版。
[54]高洪宾：《民事调解的理论与实务研究》,北京：人民法院出版社,2006年版。
[55]蒋月：《婚姻家庭法前沿导论》,北京：科学出版社,2007年版。
[56]孔祥瑞、李黎主编：《民法典亲属编立法若干问题研究》,北京：中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[57][日]高见泽磨：《现代中国的纠纷与法》,何勤华等译,北京：法律出版社,2003年版。
[58]陈棋炎：《亲属、继承法基本问题》,台北：台湾三民书局,1980年版。
[59][美]凯特·斯丹得利：《家庭法》,屈广清译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
[1]宋明志：“论法院调解的强制性”,《政法论丛》,2008年第1期。
[2]周永坤：“论强制性调解对法治和公平的冲击”,《法律科学》,2007年第3期。
[3]高玮玮：“强制离婚调解制度的评析与走向”,《律师世界》,2000年第8期。
[4]陈弘毅：“调解、诉讼与公正——对现代自由社会和儒家传统的反思”,《现代法学》,2001年第3期。
[5]王亚新：“论民事、经济审判方式的改革”,《中国社会科学》,1994年第1期。
[6]季卫东：“调解与法制的悖论”,《法学研究》,1989年第5期。
[7]江伟、李浩：“市场经济与法院调解制度的完善”,《中国人民大学学报》,1995年第3期。
[8]李浩：“论调解不宜作为民事审判权的运作方式”,《法律科学》,1996年第4期。
[9]李浩：“民事审判中的调审分离”,《法学研究》,第18卷第4期。
[10]张晋红：“法院调解的立法价值探究——简评法院调解的两种改良观点”,《法学研究》,1998年第5期。
[11]陈杨、杜远银：“浅析如何发挥律师在诉讼调解中的作用”,《法制与社会》,2009年第27期。
[12]李学经：“家事审判程序研究”,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
[13]吴志刚：“家事纠纷的特征性及其调解机制的构建”,《青岛农业大学学报》(社会科学版),2008年第3期。
[14][日]我妻荣：“家事调停论”[家族法的诸问题],穗积先生追悼会论文集,有斐阁,昭和2 7年版。转引自李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期。
[15]张晓茹：“家事裁判制度”,中国政法大学博士学位论文,2004年。
[16]尹绪洲：“家事审判制度研究”,河南大学硕士学位论文,2001年。
[17]陈爱武：“人事诉讼程序初论”,南京师范大学年硕士学位论文,2002年。
[18]蔡理亮：“建构我国家事审判程序之设想”,郑州大学年硕士学位论文,2004年。
[19]李永燕：“家事法院研究”,南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
[20]巫若枝：“三十年来中国婚姻法‘回归民法’的反思—兼论保持与发展婚姻法独立部门法传统”,《法制与社会发展》,2009年第4期。
[21]巫若枝：“论婚姻家庭法在法律体系中定位的历史变迁”,《廊坊师范学院学报》,2006年第1期。
[22]巫若枝：“论中国婚姻法在法律体系中地位研究之误区——兼与婚姻法私法论商榷”,《中华女子学院学报》,2006第5期。
[23]巫若枝：“当代中国家事法制实践研究”,中国人民大学博士学位论文,2007年。
[24]陈苇、秦志远：“我国台湾地区防止家庭暴力立法与司法之研究及其启示”,陈苇：《中国婚姻家庭法立法研究》,北京：群众出版社,2007年第二版。
[25]刘亚林：“论宣告婚姻无效案件审判程序——对《婚姻法司法解释(一)宣告婚姻无效案件程序规定的理解》”,万鄂湘主编：《婚姻法理论与适用》,北京：人民法院出版社,2005年版。
[26]陈雪萍：“无效婚姻之诉若干问题探讨”,《湖南省政法管理干部学院学报》,2002年第4期。
[27]赵刚、王杏飞：“我国法院调解制度的新发展”,《法学评论》,2005年第6期。
[28]伊恩·史密斯：“欧洲离婚法、离婚率及其因果关系”,载[英]安东尼·W·丹尼斯、罗伯特·罗森：《结婚与离婚的发经济学分析》,王世贤译,北京：法律出版社2005年版。
[29]陈苇、胡苷用：“离婚诉讼前处理子女抚养纠纷的一种新机制——澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’评介及其启示”,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,2007年第4期。
[30]张学军：“离婚诉讼中的调解研究”,梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第7卷),北京：法律出版社,1997年版。
[31]黄荣康、路志新：“澳大利亚家事法院的调解”,《广州审判》,2005年第6期。
[32]卫洁：“澳大利亚家庭法的家事调解制度对我国的启示”,《山西农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2007年第2期。
[33][日]小岛武司：“调停制度”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版。
[34]李青：“中日家事调停的比较研究”,《比较法研究》,2003年第1期。
[35][日]小岛武司：“家事法院的诉讼法意义”,陈刚主编：《自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集》,北京：中国法制出版社,2006年版。
[36]“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”课题组：“婚姻家庭争议解决机制研究”,《中国法学会婚姻家庭法学会研究会2009年年会论文集》。
[37]李荣棣、唐德华：“试论我国民事诉讼法中的调解”,《法学研究》,1981年第5期。转引自章武生、吴泽勇：“法院调解制度之重塑”,章武生等：《司法现代化与民事诉讼制度的建构》,法律出版社,2000年版。
[38]蒋月：“构建婚姻家庭诉讼司法调解制度”,载《甘肃社会科学》2008年第1期。
[39]陈苇、来文彬：“论我国家事纠纷人民调解的新机制——以澳大利亚‘家庭关系中心’之家事纠纷调解为视角”,《学术交流》,2009年第7期。
[40]陈爱武：“家事调解：比较借鉴与制度重构”,《法学》,2007年第6期。
[41]季国刚、张伟林：“调解是人民法院审理离婚案件的必经程序”,《湖州师专学报》,1988年第1期。
[42]于伟：“调解并非离婚诉讼的必经程序”,《现代法学》,1986年第4期。
[43]范建友：“调解不是审理婚姻案件的必经程序”,《法学》,1987年第8期。
[44]王红岩：“试论离婚诉讼中的调解”,陈光中主编：《诉讼法学论丛》(1986-1987),北京：中国政法大学出版社,1988年版。
[45]连春祥：“离婚调解之己见”,吉罗洪主编：《新世纪审判实践与案例评析》(上),北京：人民法院出版社2006年版。
[1]崔清新：“建议将主持调解纳入律师执业范围”,新华网2009年8月17日。
[2]白龙：“最高法副院长：法官律师应同担一份责任、同守一条底线”,《人民日报》,2010年1月27日。
[3]支振锋：“调解能否成为法院化解社会矛盾的法宝”,《中国社会科学报》,2009年12月15日。
[4]林白：“《意见》的尴尬困境”,《法制日报》,“法学院”专版,2009年10月14日。
[5]陈虹伟、李娜：“律师借协商性调解机制转型”,《法制日报》,2009年11月13日。
[6]何玲玲、孙金霞：“杭州下城区：‘和事佬’调解机制化解民间矛盾”,http://news.cctv.com/ china/20090319/104993.shtml/2009-10-10。
[7]朱隽：“民政部发布《中国民政统计年鉴(2009)》显示：离婚好说好散越来越多,法院诉讼越来越少”,《重庆晚报》,2009年12月21日。
[8]常风臣：“离婚调解能否适用自愿原则”,《人民法院报》,2005年第4版。
[9]谭桂珍：“论澳门婚姻登记制度”,http://www.bnusgl.com/Item/2393.aspx/2009-11-11.
[10]陈敏：“家庭暴力不适用调解”,http://yyfx. chinacourt. org/public/detail. php?id= 73/20 09-10-10.
[11]“妇联倡设家事法庭调解中心,司警局吁妇女及未成年人遭虐打性侵立即报案”,《澳门日报》,2009年8月16日。
[12]潘剑锋：“调解风暴：和谐社会构建的一道风景”,中国政法大学讲座内容,法大民商经济法网http://www.ccelaws.com/qianyanbaogao/2009-12-20/8680.html/2010-1-6。
[1]Marian Roberts, Mediation in Family Disputes:Principles of Practice (Third Edition), Eng land: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2008.
[2]Carol A. Butler and Dolores D. Walker, The Divorce Mediation Answer Book, New York: Kodansha America, Inc..
[3]Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation, London: Sweet& Maxwell,1997.
[4]Alison Taylor, The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practi ce, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2002.
[5]Patti Bertschler and Laurette Cocklin, TRUCE! Using Elder Mediation to Resolve Conflict among Families, Seniors and Organizations, NCS Publishing,2004.
[6]John Bertschler and Patti Bertschler, Elder Mediation: A New Solution to Age-Old Proble ms, NCS Publishing,2009.
[7]Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem (ed.), Divorce and Family Mediation:Mode Is, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004.
[8]Laurence Boulle. Mediation:Principles, Process, Practice (Second edition). LexisNexis Bu tterworths, Australia,2005.
[9]Morton Deutsch. Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Hav en: Yale University Press,1973.
[10]Coogler O.J. Structured Mediation in Divorce Settlement: A Handbook for Marital Mediat ors. Lexington, Mass.:D.C. Heath.1978.
[11]Joan Blades, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engle wood Cliffs, New Jersey,1985.
[12]Haynes J. M., Divorce Mediation:A practical guide for therapist and counselors, New Y ork: Spring,1981.
[13]Haynes J. M., Mediating Divorce: A casebook of I successful for family negotiations, San Francisco:Jossey Boss,1989.
[14]Haynes J. M., The Fundamental of Family Mediation, State University of New York Pres s,1994.
[15]Haynes J.M. The Fundamental of Family Mediation, State University of New York Press, 1994.
[16]Hanson, James C., Divorce and Family Mediation, USA: Aspen Systems Corporation,1985.
[17]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Family Mediation:Contemporary Issues, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,1995.
[18]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation:Helping Familie s Resolve Conflict, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.,2002.
[19]Johnston J. and Roseby, In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understand ing and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997.
[20]Johnston J. and Campbell L. Impasse of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Confli ct, New York: Simon and Schuster,1988.
[21]Johnston J. and Roseby, In the Name of Child: A Developmental Approach to Understand ing and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce, New York: Free Press,1997.
[22]Bech, A. T. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence Ne w York: HarperCollins,1999.
[23]Bush and Folger, The Promise of mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1994.
[24]Jay Folberg, Ann L. Milne and Peter Salem edited, Divorce and Family Mediation:Mode ls, Techniques, and Application, New York: The Guilford Press,2004.
[25]Baruch Bush and J Folger, The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco:Jossey-Ball,1994.
[26]Alison Taylor. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution:Mediation Theory and Practi ce. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2002.
[27]Joan Blade, Family Mediation: Cooperative Divorce Settlement, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1985.
[28]Landau, B., Bartoletti & R. Mesbur, Family Mediation Handbook, Toronto:Butterworths, 1987.
[29]Michael White and David Epston, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, New York:W. W. Norton & Company,1990.
[30]White, M. Maps of narrative practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,2007.
[31]John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Reso lution. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass,2000.
[32]John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Practicing Narrative Mediation:Loosening the Grip of Conflict, CA:Jossey-Bass,2008.
[33]Beck, C. J. A. & Sales, B. D. Family mediation: Facts, myths and future prospects. Was hington, DC:American Psychological Association,2001.
[1]The Symposium on Standards of Practice, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Di vorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol.39, Issue 1,2001.
[2]Timothy Hedeen, Coercion and Self-determination in Court-connected Mediation:All Medi ation are Voluntary, but Some are More Voluntary than Others, The Justice System Journal, Vol.2 6, No.3,2005.
[3]C. Eileen Pruett, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation:Guideli nes for a Mature Profession, American Journal of Family Law, Vol.15, Issue 4,2001.
[4]ABA, Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Law Disputes 1984, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4,1984.
[5]Andrew Schepard, An Introduction to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Di vorce Mediation, Family Law Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1,2001.
[6]Alison Taylor, Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Context, Ethics, Influence, an d Transformative Process, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.14, No.3,1997.
[7]Susan Douglas, Neutrality in Mediation: A Study of Mediator Perceptions, Queensland Un iversity of Technology Law and Justice Journal, Vol.8, No.1,2008.
[8]Orna Cohen, Naomi Dattner, and Ahron Luxenburg, The Limits of the Mediator's Neutral ity, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4,1999.
[9]Janet Rifkin, Jonathan Millen, Sara Cobb, Toward a New Discourse for Mediation: A Crit ique of Neutrality, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 2,1991.
[10]Kevin Gibson, Leigh Thompson and Max H. Bazerman, Shortcomings of Neutrality in M ediation: Solutions Based on Rationality, Negotiation Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1,2008.
[11]Lawrence R. Freedman, Michael L. Prigoff, Confidentiality in Mediation:The Need for Pr otection, Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.2:1,1986.
[12]F Crobie, Aspects of Confidentiality in Mediation:A Matter of Balancing Competing Pub lic Interests, CDRJ, Vol.51, No.2,1995.
[13]Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consiste ncy or Crucial Predictability?, Marquette Law Review, Vol.85,2001-2002.
[14]Craig McEwen and Nancy H. Rogers, Bringing the Lawyers into Divorce Mediation, Disp ute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994.
[15]Carrie-Anne Tondo, Rinarisa Coronel, Bethany Drucker, Mediation Trends:A Survey of th e States,39 Fam. Ct. Rev.431,2001.
[16]Karen A. Zerhusen, Reflections on the Role of the Neutral Lawyer: The Lawyer as Medi ator, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol.81, pp.1165-1176,1992-1993.
[17]Riskin, Leonard L., Toward New Standards for the Neutral Lawyer in Mediation,26 Ari z. L. Rev.329,1984.
[18]Pauline h. tesler, The Organized Bar and the Collaborative Law Movement:A Study in P rofessional Change,50 ARIZ. L. REV.290,2008.
[19]Thomas D. Vu, Going to Court as a Last Resort: Establishing a Duty for Attorneys in D ivorce Proceedings to Discuss Alternative Dispute Resolution with Their Clients,47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 586,2009.
[20]William J. Howe & Hugh Mclsaac, Including Children in Family Law Proceedings-Interna tional Perspectives:Finding the Balance:Ethical Challenges and Best Practices for Lawyers Present ing Parents when the Interests of Children as Stake,46 Fam.Ct.Rev.78,2008.
[21]Donald T. Saposnek, The Value of Children in Mediation: A Cross-cultural Perspective, M ediation Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4,1994.
[22]Lauri Boxer-Macomber, Revisting the Impact of California's Mandatory Custody Mediation Program on Victims of Domestic Violence Through a Feminist Positionality Lens,15 St. Thomas L. Rev.883,2003.
[23]Hon. Leonard Edwards, Steve Barton, and George Ferrick, A Comment on William J. Ho we and Hugh Mcisaac's Article "Finding the Balance" Published in the 22 January 2008 Issue of Family Court Review,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.586,2008.
[24]Hon. Leonard Edwards, Steve Barton, and George Ferrick, Domestic Violence and Mediati on: A Dialogue:Supply,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.595,2008.
[25]Penelope E. Bryan, Reclaiming Professionalism: The Layer's Role in Divorce Mediation, 28 Fam. L. Q.1994.
[26]John Kelly and Mary Dueyee, Women's and Men's Views of Mediation in Voluntary and Mandatory Mediation Settings, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol.30,1992.
[27]Marion Liebmann, History and Overview of Mediation in the UK, IN Marion edited, Me diation in Context, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers,2000.
[28]Kelly J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and conciliation courts review, Vol.34,1996.
[29]Depner C., Cannata K. and Simon M., Building a Uniform Statistical Reporting System: A Snapshot of California Family Court Services, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol.30,1 992.
[30]Depner C, Cannata K. and Ricci I., Client Evaluation of Mediation Services, Family and Conciliation Courts Review', Vol.32, No.3,1994.
[31]Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative:Process Dangers for Women,100 Yale L.J.1545, 1990.
[32]Jennifer P. Maxwell, Mandatory Mediation of Custody in the Face of Domestic Violence: Suggestions for Courts and Mediators,37 Fam. & Concil. Cts Rev.335,1999.
[33]Dane A. Gaschen, Mandatory Custody Mediation: The Debate over Its Usefulness Continu es,10 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.469,1995.
[34]Karla Fischer et al., The Culture of Battering and the Role of Mediation in Domestic Vi olence Cases,46 Smu L. Rev.2117,1993.
[35]Lisa G. Lerman, Mediation of Wife-Abuse Case:The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women,7 Harv. Women's L. J.57,1984.
[36]William J. Howe and Hugh Mcisaac, Finding the Balance:Ethical Challenges and Best P ractices for Layers Representing Parents When the Interests of Children Are at Stake,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.78,2008.
[37]William J. Howe and Hugh Mcisaac, Domestic Violence and Mediation:A Dialogue:Res ponse,46 Fam. Ct. Rev.592,2008.
[38]Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No, and Maybe:Informed Decision Making About Divorce Medi ation in the Presence of Domestic Violence,9 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L.145,2003.
[39]Alison Healy, One-Third of Couples in Mediation Faced Domestic Violence, The Irish tim es, September 12,2007.
[40]Robin Drapkin, and Florence Bienenfeld, "The Power of Including Children in Custody Mediation", in Craig A. Everett (Ed.), Divorce Mediation:Perspectives on the Field, The Waworth Press, Inc.,1985.
[41]Ernest A. Sanchez & Sherrie Kibler-Sanchez, Empowering Children in Mediation,3 Fam. Ct. Rev.42,2004.
[42]Judge Leonard Edwards (ret), Comments on the Miller Commission Report: A California Perspective, Pace Law Review, Vol.27,2007.
[43]Carrie-Anne Tondo et al., Mediation Trends:A Survey of the States,39 FAM. CT. REV. 431,2001.
[44]Joan B. Kelly, Psychological and Legal Interventions for Parents and Children in Custody and Access Disputes:Current Research and Practice,10 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L.129,2002.
[45]Edwad Kruk, Grandparent Visitation Disputes:Multigenerational Approaches to Family Me diation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.l,1994.
[46]Partick Parkison, Keeping in contact: the role of family relationship centres in Australia, Child and Family LawQuarterly, Vol.18, No.2,2006.
[47]McIntosh, Jennifer E; Wells,Yvonne D; Long, Caroline M, Child-focused and Child-inclusi ve Family Law Dispute Resolution:One Year Findings from a Prospective Study of Outcomes, Jo urnal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 1,2007.
[48]Boyhan, Patricia A; Gerner, Francesca J T, "Doing What It Takes":A Family Dispute Re solution Case Study Using a Multidisciplinary Approach, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 2, Nov.2007.
[49]Hewlett, Bill, Accessing the Parental Ming Through the Heart:A Case Study in Child In elusive Mediation, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.13, Issue 1,2007.
[50]Dorothy J. Della Noce, What Is a Model for Mediation Practice? A Critical Review of F amily Mediation: Contemporary Issues, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.15, No.2,1997.
[51]Andrew I. Schwebel, Divorce Mediation: Four Models and Their Assumption about Chan ges in Parties'Positions, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3,1994.
[52]Sarah Childs Grebe, Building on structures mediation:An Integrated Model for Global M ediation of Separation and Divorce, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.12, No.1,1994.
[53]Vanderkooi, L., & Pearson, J. Mediating divorce disputes:Mediator behaviors, styles and rules. Family Relations, Vol.32, No.4,1983.
[54]Susan M. Brown, Models of mediation, in James C. Hanson. Divorce and Family Mediati on, USA:Aspen Systems Corporation,1985.
[55]Markowitz, James R. Mediation in labor disputes and divorces:A comparative analysis, Mediation Quarterly, No.2,1983.
[56]Howard H. Irving and Michael Benjamin, Therapeutic Family Mediation: Fitting the Servi ces to the Interactional Diversity of Client Couples, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.7, No.2,1989.
[57]Beth M. Erickson, Therapeutic Mediation: A Saner Way of Disputing, Journal of America n Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Vol.14,1997.
[58]Michael Benjamin and Howard H. Irving, Toward a Feminist-informed Model of Therape utic Family Mediation, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.10, No.2,1992.
[59]Robert E. Emery, David Sbarra and Tara Grover, Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflec tion,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.22,2009.
[60]Robert A. Hahn and David M. Kleist, Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflection for Fa mily and Couples Counselling, The Family Journal, Vol.8, No.2,2000.
[61]Kelly, J., A Decade of Divorce Mediation Research, Family and Conciliation Courts Revi ew, Vol.34,1996.
[62]Leonard Riskin, Mediator Orientations, Strategies, Techniques, Alternatives to the High Co st of Litigation, Vol.12,1994.
[63]Riskin, L. L., Understanding Mediators'Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques:A Grid f or the Perplexed, Harford Negotiation Law Review, Vol.1,1997.
[64]Alfini, J. J., and Glay, G. S. Should Lawyer Mediators Be Prohibited from Providing Leg al Advice or Evaluations?, Dispute Resolution Magazine, Vol.1,1994.
[65]Love, L.P. The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should not Evaluate, Florida State Univ ersity Law Review, Vol.24,1997.
[66]Robert A Baruch Bush and Sally Ganong Pope, Changing the Quality of Conflict Interact ion:The Principles and Practice of Transformative Mediation, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol.3,2002.
[67]Bush, R. A. B., What do We Need a Mediator? Mediation's Value-added for Negotiation, Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol.12,1996.
[68]Della Noce, D. J. Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in Mediation, Neg otiation Journal, Vol.15, No.3,1999.
[69]M Dewdney, Transformative Mediation:Implications for Practitioners,2001,12 ADRJ 20.
[70]Folger J. & Bush. R. Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention:Ten Hallmark s of a Transformative Approach to Practice, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.13,1995.
[71]J Millen and S Cobb, "Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality", 9 Mediation Quarterly 151,1991.
[72]JenniJer McIntosh, Child-Inclusive Divorce Mediation: Report on a Qualitative Research S tudy, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.18, No.l,2000.
[73]Linda Crush, When Mediation Fails Child Protection:Lessons for the Future,23 Can. J. Fam. L.5,2007.
[74]Alberta Law Reform Institute, Court-connected Family Mediation Programs in Canada, Re search paper No.20, May 1994.
[75]Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia, Evaluation of the Family Mediation Pr acticum Project, June 2005.
[76]Miquel Martin Casals, Divorce Mediation in Europe:An Introductory Outline, Electronic j ournal of Comparative Law, Vol.9, No.2,2005.
[77]Council of Europe, Concept Paper of the 7th European Conference on Family Law on In ternational Family Mediation, CONF-FL (2009) 1.
[78]Janet A. Walker, Family Mediation in England:Strategies for Gaining Acceptance, Medial ion Quarterly, Vol.8, No.4,1991.
[79]Marian Roberts, Family Mediation: The Development of the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom, Mediation Quarterly, Vol.22, No.4,2005.
[80]Benoit Bastard and Laura Cardia-voneche, Family Mediation in France, International Jour nal of Law and the Family, Vol.7, No.3,1993.
[81]Elisa Guiraud Terrier, Challengea of Training in International Family Mediation in the Lig ht of Experience of the "DIPLOME D'ETAT" in International Family Mediation, CONF-FL-SP (20 09) 13 E.
[82]Deborah Macfarlane, Family Mediation in France, Journal of Family Studies, Vol.10, No.3, 2004.
[83]Stephane Charlesworth, The Acceptance of Family Mediation in Australia, Mediation Quar terly, Vol.8 No.4,1991.
[84]Alaistair Nicholson, Mediation in the Family Court of Australia,32 Family and Conciliati on Court Review,139,1994.
[85]Dale Bagshaw, Developing Family Mediation Standards: An Australian Experience, Medial ion Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4,1999.
[86]Berry Zondag, Let's not Get Mediation into our Courts at All. NZ Lawyer, Issue 120,4 September 2009.
[87]Satoshi Minamikata, Resolution of Disputes over Parental Rights and Duties in a Marital Dissolution Case in Japan:A Nonlitigious Approach in Chotei (Family Court Mediation), Family L aw Quarterly, Volume 39, Number 2,2005.
[88]Partricia L. Sullivan, Culture, Divorce, and Family Mediation in Hong Kong,43 Fam. Ct. Rev.109,2005.
[89]Black, M., and Joffee W., A Lawyer/Therapist Team Approach to Divorce, Conciliation a nd Courts Review, Vol.16, No.l,1978.
[90]Joseph L. Steinberg, Towards an Interdisciplinary Commitment: A Divorce Lawyer Propos es Attorney-Therapist Marriages or, at the Least, an Affair, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 6 Issue 3,1980.
[91]Neil Robinson, ADR Professional:Developing Family Mediation, [2009] Fam Law 253.
[1]Old AFM-AFCC Standards of Practice for Divorce and Family Mediation (1984), at: http: //www.mediate.com/articles/afmstds.cfm/2009-09-09.
[2]ABA, AAA. & Assn. for Conflict Res., Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, at: h ttp://www.abanet.org/dispute/news/ModelStandardsofConductfor Mediatorsfina105.pdf/2009-09-09.
[3]Arline Kardasis and Blair Trippe, Elder and Family Mediation Services, at: http://www.lo ngtermcarelink.net/eldercare/eldermediation.htm/2009-11-11.
[4]Anthony J. Serra, Esq., Using Elder Mediation in Adult Guardianship Cases:A New Appro ach for the Court Appointed Attorney, at: http://www.eldermediationcenter.com/pgl0.cfm/2009-11-12
[5]Susan K. Boardman, John Fiske, Laurie Israel, and Ken Neumann, Marital Mediation: An Emerging Area of Practice, May 2009, at:http://www.mediate.com/articles/maritalmediationl. cfm/20 09-12-11.
[6]Jan Mark Dudman, Co-Mediation with Attorney and Marriage Family Therapist, at: http:// www.divorcenet.com/states/california/comediation_with_attomey_and_family_therapist/2009-12-12.
[7]Toran Hansen, The Narrative Approach to Mediation, at: http://www.mediate.com/ articles/ hansenT/2009-10-12.
[8]SCENTRO NAZIONALE PER IL VOLONTARIATO, Family Mediation in Europe,at:http: //www.centxovolontariato.net/daphine/mind/meeeting_bruxelles/Family_Mediation_in_Europe.pdf.
[9]Beverley A Sayers, Family Mediation in England and Wales, at:http://www.europarl. europ a.eu/comparl/juri/hearings/20071004/sayers l_en.pdf.
[10]Evaluation Studies of Family Mediation Services in Australia, at: http://epublications. bond. edu.au/law-pubs/107/2009-08-09.
[11]Carol Powell, Let's get the new family mediation service into our Family Courts, at: http: //www.leadr. co.nz/db/images/M_PDFs_articles/familycrt.pdf.
[12]Lim Lan Yuan, Mediation Styles and Approaches in Asian Culture, at: http://www. apmec. unisa.edu.au/apmf/2003/papers/limlanyuan.pdf.
[13]Lisa Parkinson, Developing International Family Mediation and Harmonizing Standards, C ONF-FL-SP (2009) 2 E.