法院调解悖论及其化解——一种历时性大数据的分析进路  

The solution to the paradox of court-annexed mediation

作　　者：陈慰星[1] 

机构地区：[1]华侨大学法学院,福建泉州362021

出　　处：《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2018年第2期123-130,共8页Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目(15BFX136)"知识产权诉讼证据规则研究"

摘　　要：法院调解作为一项应对诉讼爆炸与化解矛盾的基层司法政策,在实践中出现了法院片面追求高调解率且调解协议强制执行率高的双高问题。按照波斯纳和解定理的经济学解释,"双高"源于法院促进调解合意与实现技术间存在的手段与目的悖论。其具体表现为:在解纷场景外部,采用提高诉讼费率来激励调解的方法,与"接近司法"诉权保障目标发生冲突;在解纷场景内部,法官在调解率绩效考核压力下采用强制调解技术,与保障当事人和解报价合意自由相抵牾。基于逾76万法院调解大数据进行的建模和拟合分析结果,化解法院调解悖论的司法改革路线,主要应落脚于将证据充分性纳入调解案件分流识别指标,并在调解时强化两造真实促进义务和法官释明义务,同时引入分阶段调解技术。而相关的法官调解绩效考核内容则应修正为针对"适宜调解"案件的调解率。As a policy which resolves litigation explosion and civil disputes, court - annexed mediation has been subject to academic controversies . To employ Posner＇s settlement principle, those controversies are orient from paradox of methods and objectives of court - annexed mediation ： externally, it is a conflict between raising litigation fee rate to stimulate mediation and the guarantee of ＂access to justice＂ rights, while internally, it＇ s a conflict between compulsory mediation by judges and the freedom to reconcile for parties. Using city C＇s court - annexed mediation data to do logic modeling and fitting analysis, this paper concludes to give cases with adequacy of evidence priority of mediation, to strengthen litigants＇ truth promotion obligations as well as interpretation of the judge during mediation , to introduce mediation phased technology and mediation rate of appropriate case as new judicial perform standard are key to resolve the paradox of court - annexed mediation.

关 键 词：法院调解 波斯纳和解定理 大数据 拟合分析 

分 类 号：D926.2[政治法律—法学]