论我国“大调解”机制中政府的角色定位——以荷兰的调解制度为借鉴
发布时间：2018-08-10 17:02
【摘要】：我国的"大调解"机制在制度设计上强调党委、政府的主导地位,调解主体的多元化,按照人民调解、行政调解和司法调解相结合的"三位一体"工作体系,综合利用各种社会制度资源进行社会矛盾化解,做到"案结事了"、"三效合一"。但在实践中存在政府主导、缺少中立第三方的"第二方纠纷解决机制"的倾向。荷兰早期的政府调解没有使荷兰建立有效的调解制度,二战后荷兰废除了政府调解制度,政府从积极主动的调解者转变为在理论上提供准备和论证者。我们应该从荷兰的经验中得到相应启示。
[Abstract]:China's "Great Mediation" mechanism emphasizes the leading position of party committees and governments, the diversity of mediation subjects, and the "trinity" work system of combining people's mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation in the system design. Comprehensive use of various social system resources to resolve social contradictions, "case concluded", "three-effect in one." In practice, however, there is a tendency of government leading and lack of the second party dispute settlement mechanism of neutral third party. The early Dutch government mediation did not make the Netherlands establish an effective mediation system. After World War II the Dutch government abolished the government mediation system and the government changed from a proactive mediator to a theoretical provider of preparation and argumentation. We should draw inspiration from the Dutch experience.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学法学院;荷兰蒂尔堡大学法学院;
【基金】：中国法学会2011年度部级重点项目“司法公信力研究”的阶段性成果,项目编号为:CLS(2011)B05
【分类号】：D926
[Abstract]:China's "Great Mediation" mechanism emphasizes the leading position of party committees and governments, the diversity of mediation subjects, and the "trinity" work system of combining people's mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation in the system design. Comprehensive use of various social system resources to resolve social contradictions, "case concluded", "three-effect in one." In practice, however, there is a tendency of government leading and lack of the second party dispute settlement mechanism of neutral third party. The early Dutch government mediation did not make the Netherlands establish an effective mediation system. After World War II the Dutch government abolished the government mediation system and the government changed from a proactive mediator to a theoretical provider of preparation and argumentation. We should draw inspiration from the Dutch experience.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学法学院;荷兰蒂尔堡大学法学院;
【基金】：中国法学会2011年度部级重点项目“司法公信力研究”的阶段性成果,项目编号为:CLS(2011)B05
【分类号】：D926
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前3条
1 章武生;;论我国大调解机制的构建——兼析大调解与ADR的关系[J];法商研究;2007年06期
2 艾佳慧;;“大调解”的运作模式与适用边界[J];法商研究;2011年01期
3 苏力;;关于能动司法与大调解[J];中国法学;2010年01期
【共引文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李语嫣;王聪;;超越公力救济中心主义——读《论私力救济》[J];研究生法学;2010年06期
2 易继明;;当代法学的历史使命——以中国法治建设为指向的法对策学思考[J];法律科学(西北政法大学学报);2011年01期
3 徐亚文;邓珊珊;;中国语境下的“能动司法”:语义与实践[J];湖北社会科学;2010年11期
4 周宗良;;论诉讼调解在审判权运行中的角色定位[J];福建法学;2011年01期
5 董v，
本文编号：2175595
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/gongjianfalunwen/2175595.html
