赋予强制力抑或建立司法审查机制——执行和解双重救济制度的完善  

Giving Coercive Force or Establishing a Judicial Review Mechanism--Perfect Conception of the Double Relief System of Implementing Reconciliation

作　　者：于鹏[1] 赵丹阳 YU Peng;ZHAO Dan-yang

机构地区：[1]北京理工大学法学院,北京100081

出　　处：《北方论丛》2021年第6期91-98,共8页The Northern Forum

摘　　要：执行和解制度可以充分调动当事人的协商意愿,为申请执行人和被执行人之间提供缓冲余地,但双重救济模式的救济选择权和救济范围仍需进一步扩张。现行执行和解双重救济模式下,当事人的救济渠道仍不足以处理复杂的司法问题,因此是否赋予执行和解协议强制执行力和是否建立司法审查机制,成为学界和司法界争论的焦点。赋予执行和解协议强制执行力即赋予当事人第三条救济路径,扩大了当事人的执行和解救济选择权;而建立司法审查机制在性质上则是事前规制,主张加大对执行和解协议的审查力度。两种完善构想都应对执行和解协议的类型和履行程度加以区分,明确不同情况下执行和解救济程序的选择,通过对救济模式的优化,最终实现当事人应有之救济权利。The enforcement reconciliation system can fully mobilize the parties'willingness to negotiate and provide a buffer between the applicant for enforcement and the enforced.However,the remedy options and scope of the dual relief model still need to be further expanded.Under the current dual remedy model of enforcement and reconciliation,the parties'remedy channels are still insufficient to deal with complex judicial issues.Therefore,whether to grant enforcement of the reconciliation agreement and whether to establish a judicial review mechanism have become the focus of debate in the academic and judicial circles.Enforcing the enforcement of the settlement agreement is to give the parties a third remedy route,which expands the parties'right to choose the remedy for the implementation of the settlement;the establishment of a judicial review mechanism is in nature a pre-regulation,advocating to strengthen the review of the implementation of the settlement agreement.Both of the two perfect ideas should distinguish the type and degree of implementation of the reconciliation agreement,clarify the choice of implementation and reconciliation procedures under different circumstances,and finally realize the relief rights that the parties should have by optimizing the relief model.

关 键 词：执行和解 救济模式 强制执行力 司法审查 

分 类 号：D926[政治法律—法学]