我国委托调解制度研究——以民商法为视角

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

喻文明

导师:

赵万一

导师单位:

民商法学院(知识产权学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

委托调解;法院调解;多元化纠纷解决机制;司法ADR

摘要:

委托调解,是指法院在征得当事人的同意后,将案件委托给具有法律知识、社会经验或与案件所涉问题有专门知识的组织或个人进行调解,并对达成的调解协议依法予以确认的制度。该制度是最高人民法院于2004 年 9 月 16 日 颁布的《关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第三条所创设,是我国法院调解制度的一大创新。但除上述第三条规定外,我 国并无其他法律法规或司法解释对该制度作出具体详细的规范,造成该制 度在审判实践中缺乏可操作性,要充分发挥委托调解制度的预期功能,应 当对该制度进行全面科学的解读,从而充分发挥其作用并予以完善以实现 创设之目的。 论文以简短的“引言”引出研究的课题。在 第一部分 对委托 调解制度作一概述,主要是对委托调解做一完整而必要的梳理,分四部分 介绍该制度的创立、概念和特征、产生原因及意义, 如 委托调解具有选择性、司法性、受托调解人之多元性等特征;在完善多元化纠纷解决机制,实现分流案件、减轻法院压力,方便当事人解决纠纷等方面,委托调解意义重大,它扩大了调解的空间,同时也克服了法院调解制度调审结合模式下产生的诸多弊端等。论文的 第二部分 是对委托调解制度法律关系的分 析,是研究的重点部分。 委托调解法律关系的主体包括法院、当事人和受 托调解人,客体是指当事人之间要解决的法律纠纷。在主客体之间,法院 具有决定权和审查义务;当事人具有选择权和履行协议的义务;受托调解 人具有调解权、获取报酬权以及保密义务。 而 第 三部分 则是阐述我国委 托调解制度存在的问题,主要从立法和实际操作等两个层面进行描述。 我国现行委托调解制度在立法上存在一定程度的合法性基础不牢、立法形式不妥、可操作性不强、法制统一性不明等方面的问题。在司法层面,委托主体、受托人、委托时间、适用范围、调解程序、是否制定调解书以及各方主体实际适用方面的问题亟待进一步明确和解决。 第四部分 在总结前 两部分研究成果的基础上,从比较法视野的角度,通过与国外相关制度的 比较,对我国委托调解制度的构建提出想法和建议。 我国委托调解制度可以从如下几方面进行完善:司法实践操作方面要遵循一定的工作程序,要询问当事人是否愿意接受委托调解,要规范调解的具体程序;在适用范围上,凡是适于调解的案件均可实行委托调解;受托调解人可以从退休法官、 2 人民陪审员、协助调解员、人民调解员中选任,以建立一支稳定的受托调解人队伍。另外,也可制作受托调解人的名册,供当事人选择。委托调解程序的启动要满足《调解规定》的相应要求,应向第三人发送委托书。调解过程中回避、调节方式、期日地点、规范选择等环节要注意各方主体实体和程序权利的维护。调解结束后,受托调解人应及时将当事人达成的调解协议送交法官审核。此外,委托调解的诉讼费用应当少于诉讼(判决)所确定的诉讼费,并且应合理区别诉前委托调解与诉中委托调解的诉讼费用。最后,““结束语结束语””部分再就选题的研究做一综合性的陈述。部分再就选题的研究做一综合性的陈述。

学科:

法律*

提交日期

2025-11-18

引用参考

喻文明. 我国委托调解制度研究——以民商法为视角[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 我国委托调解制度研究——以民商法为视角
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 05334120101012
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 喻文明
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 赵万一
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 委托调解 ;法院调解;多元化纠纷解决机制;司法ADR
  • dc.subject
  • Conciliated commission;commissioned by the court;mediation to resolve a dispute mediation mechanism;judicial diversity ADR
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 委托调解,是指法院在征得当事人的同意后,将案件委托给具有法律知识、社会经验或与案件所涉问题有专门知识的组织或个人进行调解,并对达成的调解协议依法予以确认的制度。该制度是最高人民法院于2004 年 9 月 16 日 颁布的《关于人民法院民事调解工作若干问题的规定》第三条所创设,是我国法院调解制度的一大创新。但除上述第三条规定外,我 国并无其他法律法规或司法解释对该制度作出具体详细的规范,造成该制 度在审判实践中缺乏可操作性,要充分发挥委托调解制度的预期功能,应 当对该制度进行全面科学的解读,从而充分发挥其作用并予以完善以实现 创设之目的。 论文以简短的“引言”引出研究的课题。在 第一部分 对委托 调解制度作一概述,主要是对委托调解做一完整而必要的梳理,分四部分 介绍该制度的创立、概念和特征、产生原因及意义, 如 委托调解具有选择性、司法性、受托调解人之多元性等特征;在完善多元化纠纷解决机制,实现分流案件、减轻法院压力,方便当事人解决纠纷等方面,委托调解意义重大,它扩大了调解的空间,同时也克服了法院调解制度调审结合模式下产生的诸多弊端等。论文的 第二部分 是对委托调解制度法律关系的分 析,是研究的重点部分。 委托调解法律关系的主体包括法院、当事人和受 托调解人,客体是指当事人之间要解决的法律纠纷。在主客体之间,法院 具有决定权和审查义务;当事人具有选择权和履行协议的义务;受托调解 人具有调解权、获取报酬权以及保密义务。 而 第 三部分 则是阐述我国委 托调解制度存在的问题,主要从立法和实际操作等两个层面进行描述。 我国现行委托调解制度在立法上存在一定程度的合法性基础不牢、立法形式不妥、可操作性不强、法制统一性不明等方面的问题。在司法层面,委托主体、受托人、委托时间、适用范围、调解程序、是否制定调解书以及各方主体实际适用方面的问题亟待进一步明确和解决。 第四部分 在总结前 两部分研究成果的基础上,从比较法视野的角度,通过与国外相关制度的 比较,对我国委托调解制度的构建提出想法和建议。 我国委托调解制度可以从如下几方面进行完善:司法实践操作方面要遵循一定的工作程序,要询问当事人是否愿意接受委托调解,要规范调解的具体程序;在适用范围上,凡是适于调解的案件均可实行委托调解;受托调解人可以从退休法官、 2 人民陪审员、协助调解员、人民调解员中选任,以建立一支稳定的受托调解人队伍。另外,也可制作受托调解人的名册,供当事人选择。委托调解程序的启动要满足《调解规定》的相应要求,应向第三人发送委托书。调解过程中回避、调节方式、期日地点、规范选择等环节要注意各方主体实体和程序权利的维护。调解结束后,受托调解人应及时将当事人达成的调解协议送交法官审核。此外,委托调解的诉讼费用应当少于诉讼(判决)所确定的诉讼费,并且应合理区别诉前委托调解与诉中委托调解的诉讼费用。最后,““结束语结束语””部分再就选题的研究做一综合性的陈述。部分再就选题的研究做一综合性的陈述。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In Conciliated commission, referring to the court with the consent of the parties in the agreement, the case will be entrusted to the organization or individual with the legal knowledge, experience or expertise on social issues involved with the case to carry out mediation and conciliation agreement reached in accordance with the law is to be confirmed.The system is created in the third arti cle by the Supreme People's Court, in September 16, 2004 issuing by the "People's Court on the mediation work of the civil provisions of a number of issues,", the court mediation system in China is a major innovation. In addition to the above, in the provisions of our laws and regulations or any other judicial interpretations the system is not detailed into the specific norms, resulting in lack of maneuverability in trial practice, it is necessary to give full interpretation to the mediation system , expected to commission functions, should be the comprehensive system of scientific interpretation, so as to give full play to their role and improve in order to achieve the purpose of creation. Papers by the brief "introduction" lead study. In the first part , the paper is to do a complete and necessary overview about conciliated commission system for a summary of the main mediation commised , including in four parts of the paper the 、its concept , features , the cause and significance of the conciliated commission, such as selective , judiciary, entrusted with the mediator, and other characteristics of diversity; in the dispute settlement mechanism to achieve diversion cases, the court reduce the pressure on the parties to facilitate settlement of disputes, conciliation commission is of great significance, it expanded the mediation room, at the same time Court mediation system have many drawbacks to overcome the combination of pre-trial transfer mode. The paper, the second part,analysing into relations in conciliation commission, is the focus of the study, including the main court, and the parties entrusted with the mediator, the object is the relations between the parties to resolve legal disputes. In between subject and object, the court have the right to review and obligate; the parties have the right to choose and to fulfill the obligations of the agreement; mediator entrusted with the mediation have the right to obtain compensation, as well as the right to confidentiality obligations."Part III" is set to entrust our mediation system problems, mainly from the legislative and practical levels. These problems is in the Legislative Council on a measure non-solid foundation on the legitimacy of the existence, unreasonable in the form of legislation , non-strong operational, the unity of the rule of law, and other unidentified problems. On the legislative level, the main commission, the trustee, commissioned by time, the scope of the mediation process, whether or not the development of mediation and the parties to book the practical application of the main aspects need to be further clarified and resolved. "Part IV," summing up the first two parts of research on the basis of comparative law from the point of view, compared our system of conciliated commission with foreign-related system put forward the ideas and proposals.China's mediation system could be commissioned from the following aspects to improve: The operation of judicial practice to follow certain procedures, it is necessary to ask whether the parties are willing to accept mediated commission to regulate the specific procedures for mediation; in the scope of application, all cases suitable for mediation Can be entrusted to the implementation of mediation; entrusted with the mediator from the retired judges, people's jurors, mediators to help the people in the selection of mediators to establish a stable mediator entrusted with the team. In addition, the mediator may also be entrusted with making the roster for the parties to choose. Commissioned to start the mediation process have to meet the "mediation" of the corresponding request and should be sent a third letter. In the process of mediation ,to avoid, the way of adjust, times and sites, the choice of norms should pay attention to all aspects of the main entities to safeguard the rights and procedures. After the mediation, the mediator should be entrusted with in a timely manner to the parties who reached a mediated settlement to the review of judges. In addition, the conciliation commission should be less than the cost of litigation proceedings (decision) to determine the legal costs and reasonable distinction and should be commissioned before the appeal and mediation v. conciliation commission in legal costs. Finally, the "Conclusion" section do research on the topic of a comprehensive statement.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-11-18
回到顶部