“纠纷治理”与“纠纷解决”:差异、共生与照应

On Dispute Governance and Dispute Resolution:Differences,Symbiosis and Compatibility

“纠纷治理”与“纠纷解决”是两种不同的纠纷应对体系和方法。两者各有其不同的理念、运作机制、行动基础和运作逻辑。“纠纷解决”在理念上将纠纷视为社会矛盾的反映,倾向于更多通过党的基层组织和群众组织开展纠纷治理。在认识上,“纠纷治理”看重纠纷之间的关联性,讲究方法的多样性和灵活性,不限于法律方式,不拘泥于法律对纠纷性质、处置程序和制度规定的约束;与此不同,“纠纷解决”则是由专职机构开展的,严格按照法律规定的程序和方式处置纠纷的一种体系。这种体系在理念上,将具体的法律纠纷视为相对独立的纠纷事件,通过对纠纷性质的识别,将其纳入相应的程序,按照既定的方式予以解决。“纠纷解决”的过程和方式受制于法律的严格规定和约束。与现实法律关系不断演进以及对法律纠纷解决公正性要求相适应,“纠纷解决”逐渐演进为一套高度自洽,专业化、技术化、体系化,有理论予以支撑的系统。在我国,这两种体系都有自己存在的现实合理性,对于我国法治的推进都有各自存在的价值。基于自身体系的结构性特点,两种体系各有所长。因此,我国应当坚持两种体系的共生并存,避免一种体系同另一种体系的关系失调,并在运作中彼此相互照应、相得益彰,在社会实践中追求自身的完善与发展。

“Dispute governance”and“Dispute resolution”are two different dispute response systems and methods.Each has its own different philosophy,operational mechanism,basis for action and operational logic.“Dispute resolution”conceptually views disputes as a reflection of social contradictions,and tends to carry out dispute governance through mass organizations and community organizations of party and government administration.In terms of understanding,“Dispute governance”emphasizes the correlation among disputes,pays attention to the diversity and flexibility of methods,and is not limited to the legal approach,or the constraints imposed by the law on the disputes’nature,disposal procedures and institutional provisions.In contrast,“Dispute resolution”is a system carried out by specialized institutions to deal with disputes in strict accordance with the procedures and methods stipulated by law.Conceptually,this system treats specific legal disputes as relatively independent disputes,which can be incorporated into corresponding procedures and resolved in accordance with the established manner,through the identification of disputes’nature.The process and manner of“Dispute resolution”are subject to the strict provisions and constraints of the law.“Dispute resolution”gradually evolves into a set of highly self-consistent,professional,technical,systematic system,supported by the theory,and adapted to the reality that legal relations continue to evolve as well as the requirements that legal disputes shall be settled justly.In our country,these two systems have their own rationality of existence and their own value for promoting the rule of law in China.Based on the structural characteristics of their own systems,both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.Therefore,China should adhere to the coexistence of two systems,avoid the exclusion and extrusion of one system on the other,ensure mutual reference in the operation,prevent mutual interference and pursue their own improvement and development in social practice.