【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟社會的發(fā)展,訴至法院的矛盾糾紛承“爆炸式”發(fā)展趨勢,世界各國相繼提出了“多元化糾紛解決”的思想,并開展了多元化糾紛解決的實踐。美國在20世紀30年代就提出了ADR概念,在60年代之后得到迅猛發(fā)展,日本、德國及我國臺灣地區(qū)也都開展了類似的替代性糾紛解決機制。我國則是在“司法社會化”和“多元化糾紛解決機制”的理論背景下提出了訴前調(diào)解的概念。訴前調(diào)解最初在上海市松江區(qū)得以開展實施,取得了良好的效果,其后迅速發(fā)展蔓延至全國。但是由于沒有統(tǒng)一的法律規(guī)范,我國訴前調(diào)解在開展實施的過程中還面臨著諸如調(diào)解主體、范圍不統(tǒng)一,調(diào)解程序不規(guī)范,調(diào)解協(xié)議效力不明確等諸多問題。 2012年8月31日,第十一屆全國人民代表大會常務(wù)委員會第二十八次會議通過了修訂《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》的決定,新民事訴訟法已于2013年1月1日起開始正式實施。新民事訴訟法第122條規(guī)定：“當事人起訴到人民法院的民事糾紛,適宜調(diào)解的,先行調(diào)解,但當事人拒絕調(diào)解的除外�！贝藯l提出了先行調(diào)解的制度,受到社會各界的廣泛關(guān)注。本文以新民事訴訟法中“先行調(diào)解”的規(guī)定為背景展開,分析我國訴前調(diào)解制度的現(xiàn)狀和存在的問題,并針對我國訴前調(diào)解制度的構(gòu)建提出具體的完善措施。 本文共分為三大部分。 第一部分介紹訴前調(diào)解的基本理論,總結(jié)關(guān)于訴前調(diào)解概念界定的不同意見,同時,提出筆者自己的觀點。另外,把訴前調(diào)解同幾個相近概念進行了區(qū)分。 第二部分重點分析我國訴前調(diào)解的現(xiàn)狀及存在的問題。筆者先是對我國目前關(guān)于訴前調(diào)解的相關(guān)法律條文進行了匯總,并對實踐中已開展的訴前調(diào)解的情況進行一個統(tǒng)計,從大中城市、小城鎮(zhèn)及村莊兩個維度選取典型進行分析,以數(shù)據(jù)、流程圖等多種形式輔助研究；然后針對我國現(xiàn)行訴前調(diào)解制度進行評析,分析其優(yōu)點及不足之處,重點圍繞新民事訴訟法中關(guān)于“先行調(diào)解”的規(guī)定展開,同時對于實踐中的應用指出其可供今后吸收借鑒的地方及存在問題需要改進之處。 第三部分針對訴前調(diào)解中存在的問題,結(jié)合對國外相關(guān)制度的研究借鑒和我國的現(xiàn)實國情,筆者詳細闡述了自己關(guān)于構(gòu)建和完善我國訴前調(diào)解制度的意見,從訴前調(diào)解的主體、范圍、流程、調(diào)解協(xié)議的效力等方面進行具體說明。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and society, the conflicts and disputes to the court are facing the trend of "explosive" development. Countries all over the world have put forward the idea of "pluralistic dispute resolution" one after another, and have carried out the practice of pluralistic dispute resolution. The United States put forward the concept of ADR in the 1930s and developed rapidly after the 1960s. Japan, Germany and Taiwan have all developed similar alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. In our country, the concept of pre-litigation mediation is put forward under the background of judicial socialization and pluralistic dispute resolution mechanism. Pre-litigation mediation was initially carried out in Songjiang District of Shanghai and achieved good results, and then spread to the whole country. However, due to the lack of uniform legal norms, in the process of implementation of pre-litigation mediation in China, it is still faced with such as the mediation subject, the scope is not uniform, the mediation procedure is not standardized. On August 31, 2012, the 28th meeting of the standing Committee of the Eleventh National people's Congress adopted a decision to amend the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China. The new Code of Civil procedure has been formally implemented since January 1, 2013. Article 122 of the new Code of Civil procedure states: "where a civil dispute brought by a party to a people's court is suitable for mediation, mediation shall be carried out first, except where the party refuses to mediate." This article put forward the system of mediation in advance, and received wide attention from all walks of life. Based on the provisions of "mediation first" in the new civil procedure law, this paper analyzes the present situation and existing problems of the pre-litigation mediation system in China, and puts forward concrete measures to perfect the construction of the pre-litigation mediation system in China. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part introduces the basic theory of pre-litigation mediation, summarizes the different opinions about the definition of pre-litigation mediation, and puts forward my own views. In addition, the pre-litigation mediation and several similar concepts are distinguished. The second part focuses on the analysis of the status quo and existing problems of pre-litigation mediation in China. First of all, the author summarizes the relevant legal provisions of pre-litigation mediation in China, and carries on a statistic on the situation of pre-litigation mediation that has been carried out in practice, and analyzes the typical cases from the two dimensions of large and medium-sized cities, small towns and villages. With data, flow chart and other forms of auxiliary research, and then in view of the current system of pre-litigation mediation in China to analyze its advantages and disadvantages, focusing on the new civil procedure law on the "mediation in advance" provisions, At the same time, for the practical application, it points out that it can be used for reference in the future and the existing problems need to be improved. In the third part, according to the problems existing in the pre-litigation mediation, combining with the research on the relevant systems in foreign countries and the actual situation of our country, the author expounds in detail his opinions on the construction and improvement of the pre-litigation mediation system in our country, from the subject of the pre-litigation mediation. Scope, flow, mediation agreement effectiveness and other aspects of the specific description.
【學位授予單位】：中央民族大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 潘劍鋒;劉哲瑋;;論法院調(diào)解與糾紛解決之關(guān)系——從構(gòu)建和諧社會的角度展開[J];比較法研究;2010年04期

2 范愉;;訴前調(diào)解與法院的社會責任 從司法社會化到司法能動主義[J];法律適用;2007年11期

3 張華;趙可;;人民法院訴前調(diào)解制度的初步建構(gòu) 司法ADR模式訴前調(diào)解制度合理性、可操作性探究[J];法律適用;2007年11期

4 章武生;司法ADR之研究[J];法學評論;2003年02期

5 李浩;論法院調(diào)解中程序法與實體法約束的雙重軟化──兼析民事訴訟中偏重調(diào)解與嚴肅執(zhí)法的矛盾[J];法學評論;1996年04期

6 齊樹潔;臺灣法院調(diào)解制度評析[J];法學;1994年08期

7 汪小珍,方龍華;“訴前調(diào)解”弊多利少 ——與牡丹江市中級法院商榷[J];法學;1994年11期

8 董健;武月冬;劉書正;;司法ADR模式訴前調(diào)解制度合理性探究[J];法制與社會;2008年22期

9 于齊;;我國法院訴前調(diào)解制度的現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];科技信息;2010年15期

10 肖建國;黃忠順;;訴前強制調(diào)解論綱[J];法學論壇;2010年06期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前4條

1 吳志剛;家事調(diào)解制度研究[D];南京師范大學;2007年

2 楊麗麗;我國法院附設(shè)調(diào)解制度研究[D];華東政法學院;2007年

3 朱亦惠;訴前調(diào)解機制探析[D];上海交通大學;2007年

4 孫正彤;訴前調(diào)解研究[D];蘇州大學;2009年

，

本文編號：2203135