法学家
  
   首页  |  期刊介绍  |  编 委 会  |  期刊订阅  |  投稿指南  |  广告服务  |  联系我们
法学家  2019, Issue (1): 101-111    DOI:
最新目录 | 下期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 Previous Articles  |  Next Articles  
“裁判式调解”现象透视
        ——兼议“事清责明”在诉讼调解中的多元化定位
陆晓燕,南京师范大学中国法治现代化研究院博士研究生,江苏省无锡市中级人民法院金融庭庭长。
A Perspective Study of the Phenomenon of“Mediation with Judgment Factors”——Also A Study of the Pluralistic Positioning of“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”in Lawsuit Mediation
Lu Xiaoyan, Doctor of Law Candidate of Nanjing Normal University School of Law, Invited Researcher of the Institute of Legal Development Strategy of China Law and Modernization Academy, Presiding Judge of the Financial Court of Wuxi Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province.
 全文: PDF (8385 KB)   HTML (1 KB)   输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      背景资料
摘要 近年来,以“事清责明”为特色的“裁判式调解”悄然进入司法的视野。一方面,“事清责明”作为调解标准,在经历了“调解热”时期的“否定”“不当调解”反思中的“否定之否定”之后,携“裁判式调解”之势回归;另一方面,在“裁判式调解”的实践形态中,作为调解标准的“事清责明”,较之作为裁判标准的“事清责明”,在内容、程序、载体上存在差异。这是因为,在法治社会初步建成的背景下,纠纷主体的理性度增加、纠纷模式的聚合度增强、纠纷类型的多样化发展,决定了规则指引的有效性、规则治理的示范性、规则创新的必要性,从而使“事清责明”调解标准的回归成为法律规则下当事人处分之治的必然要求;但在同时,法律规则在不同案件调解中的作用度、在不同调解程序中的参与度、在不同形式载体中的昭示度均不同,导致不同案件调解所需要的、不同调解程序能达到的、不同形式载体所揭示的“事责”清明度也有不同。因此,应以“事清责明”的多元化标准,作诉讼调解的程序分流,根据案件类型,确定所需要的“事责”清明度;根据所需要的“事责”清明度,决定应选择的分流程序;根据所选择的分流程序,决定应选用的“事责”载体。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
陆晓燕
关键词裁判式调解   事清责明   法官审判权   当事人处分权   程序分流     
Abstract: In recent years, the“Mediation with Judgment Factors”mainly characterized by“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”comes into the judicial field.On the one hand, as a standard of mediation, “Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”returns under the influence of“Mediation with Judgment Factors”after experiencing“negation”in the“mediation fever”period and“negation of negation”in the reflection of“improper mediation”; on the other hand, in the practical form of“Mediation with Judgment Factors”, the“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”as the mediation standard is different from that as the judgment standard in content, procedure and carrier.It's because that, under the background of a newly built society with rule of law, the increased rationality of the dispute subjects, the intensified aggregation of dispute mode, and the pluralistic development of dispute categories have determined the effectiveness of rule guidance, the demonstration of rule-based governance, and the necessity of rule innovation, so that the return of“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”as the mediation standard becomes an inevitable requirement for the parties to deal with disputes under the statutory rules; however, the effect degrees of statutory rules in the mediation of different cases, their participation degrees in different mediation procedures and their publication degrees in different forms of carriers are all different, so that the clarification degrees of“facts and responsibilities”required by the mediation of different cases, achievable in different mediation procedures and revealed in different forms of carriers are also different.Therefore, the pluralistic standard of“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”shall be adopted to make the procedure division of lawsuit mediation, and the required clarification degree of“facts and responsibilities”shall be determined based on the case type, then the division procedure determined based on the selected clarification degree and the carrier of“facts and responsibilities”determined based on the selected division procedure.
Key wordsMediation with Judgment Factors   Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities   Judicial Authority of Judges   Disposal Right of the Party   Procedure Division   
引用本文:   
陆晓燕. “裁判式调解”现象透视
        ——兼议“事清责明”在诉讼调解中的多元化定位[J]. 法学家, 2019, (1): 101-111.
LU Xiao-Yan. A Perspective Study of the Phenomenon of“Mediation with Judgment Factors”——Also A Study of the Pluralistic Positioning of“Clear Facts and Clarified Responsibilities”in Lawsuit Mediation[J]. , 2019,(1): 101-111.
 
相关文章:   
没有找到本文相关文献

版权所有 © 2011《法学家》编辑部 
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn