论文部分内容阅读
2009年4月26日,海峡两岸关系协会与海峡交流基金会在南京签订了《海峡两岸共同打击犯罪及司法互助协议》。该协议对于“相互认可及执行的民事确定裁判”是否包括法院的调解书未予以明确。而目前两岸对此存在截然相反的作法。在大陆,经人民法院审查认可的台湾地区有关法院的调解书与人民法院作出的生效判决具有同等效力。然而,台湾地区却缺乏认可人民法院民事调解书效力的相关规定和司法实践。本文通过从两岸法院调(和)解制度比较分析,认为两岸法院调(和)解制度上存在的差异并不能成为台湾地区法院不认可人民法院民事调解书效力的根本原因,并且两岸调(和)解制度也存在着诸多相同、相近的因素,这些相同、相近的因素,是台湾地区法院认可人民法院民事调解书效力的有利因素。
On April 26, 2009, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait and the Straits Exchange Foundation signed the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in the Crime and Judicial Mutual Assistance in Cross-Strait Cooperation in Nanjing. The agreement for the “mutual recognition and enforcement of civil determination of referees,” including the court's conciliation is not clear. At present, however, there is a diametrically opposite approach by both sides of the strait. In mainland China, the conciliation statement of the relevant court in Taiwan that has been examined and approved by the people's court has the same effect as the one entered into by the people's court. However, Taiwan lacks the relevant provisions and judicial practices that recognize the effectiveness of civil mediation in people's courts. Through the comparative analysis of the transfer (settlement) system between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, this paper argues that the differences in the transfer (settlement) system between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait can not be regarded as the fundamental reason why Taiwan's courts do not recognize the effectiveness of the civil mediation in the people's court. Moreover, There are also many identical and similar factors in the resolution system. These same and similar factors are favorable factors for Taiwan's courts to recognize the validity of civil mediation in people's courts.