大陆法系视域下的家事调解前置机构比较与借鉴

Comparison and Reference of Pretrial Family Mediation Institution in the Perspective of Civil Law Systems

由于对调解是否属于司法权的认识不同,大陆法系和英美法系在“调审分离”的实现路径上存在差别。我国内地属大陆法系,在司法理念和调解实践上与日本、韩国及我国台湾地区存在诸多相似之处,可在借鉴其家事调解前置机构设置经验的基础上,根据我国内地情况选择适宜的制度设计。设置单独的家事调解前置程序,确立家事调解法官和家事调解委员会调解两种调解模式。家事法官负责行使司法职权,调解员负责具体的调解事务,以此实现彻底的“调审分离”。调解成功后可作出合意裁定或调解书,明确其具有与确定判决相同的法律效力;调解不成的及时转交审判机构,审理时发现确有调解必要的,移付调解机构调解,但除特殊情况外以一次为限。

Due to the different understanding of whether mediation belongs to judicial power,there are differences between Civil Law and Common Law systems in the realization path of"separation of mediation and trial".China's Mainland is in Civil Law system and has many similarities with Japan,Korea and Taiwan China in terms of judicial philosophy and mediation practice.On the basis of their experiences in setting up pretrial family mediation institutions,we can choose a suitable design according to mainland situation,set up a separate family mediation procedure,and establish two mediation models:family judge mediation and family mediation council mediation.The family judge is responsible for exercising judicial authority,while the mediator is responsible for specific mediation matters,thus realizing a complete"separation of mediation and trial".The consensual ruling or conciliation letter made after a successful mediation shall has the same legal effect as a definite judgment;cases that fail to be mediated shall be promptly transferred to the trial body,and if the trial body finds that mediation is necessary during the trial,it shall be transferred to the mediation body,but only once,except in special cases.