调解优先原则是我国当前全面加强调解工作的一项司法政策。审判实践中的调解优先原则体现了能动司法的理念,即人民法院执法办案的根本目的在于彻底平息纷争、化解矛盾,切实促进社会的稳定和谐。当前我国正处于社会经济发展的重要机遇期,同时也处于社会矛盾的凸显期,人民法院应该更加立足于促进社会和谐稳定,更加注重把案结事了、息诉服判作为衡量审判工作质量和效果的标准。本刊编辑部注意到,自20世纪80年代至今,法院调解在我国经历了一个否定之否定的变迁过程。尤其进入新世纪后,法院调解在保障当事人的权益、促进社会稳定和谐等方面发挥着重要的作用。当然,此次法院调解的复苏并非简单地回归至审判方式改革前的状态,而是呈现出诸多新的特点。其中,法院调解社会化的发展趋势尤其引人关注。遗憾的是,对于这一在各地如火如荼展开的实践,学界迄今为止尚缺乏系统的梳理和升华。必须承认的是,受地区差异等因素的影响,目前各地法院调解社会化的具体措施和发展水平存在较大的差异,或许这也是学界少有系统研究的原因之一。如果我们并不致力于整体描述,转而选取一些具有代表性的样本,或许能聚焦问题并展开更深入的剖析。就此而言,河南省高级人民法院自2009年1月启动的“调解年”活动,不仅产生了良好的社会效应,而且在法院调解社会化方面有着较为系统和全面的尝试,具有相当的代表性。本刊试图以笔谈的形式以河南省的实践为基础,参照其他地方法院的经验,对法院调解社会化的机制和实践类型予以系统梳理。本着百家争鸣的态度,本刊对于受邀专家的来稿,只要符合通常的学术规范,不论其所表达的学术观点如何,均一律照登。所以,本专题所有观点均不代表本刊之立场。 The principle of conciliation priority is a judicial policy of our country to comprehensively strengthen the mediation work. The principle of mediation priority in trial practice embodies the concept of active justice. That is, the fundamental purpose of law enforcement cases handled by the people’s courts lies in the total elimination of disputes, the resolution of conflicts, and the effective promotion of social stability and harmony. At present, our country is in an important period of social and economic development and is also at a prominent period of social contradictions. People’s courts should be more based on promoting social harmony and stability, and pay more attention to putting the case to a close. The standard of effect. Our editorial office notes that since the 1980s up to now, court mediation has undergone a process of negative changes of negation in our country. Especially after entering into the new century, the court mediation plays an important role in protecting the rights and interests of the parties and in promoting social stability and harmony. Of course, the recovery of court mediation does not simply return to the pre-reform trial mode, but presents many new features. Among them, the trend of court mediation socialization is of particular concern. Regrettably, academic circles have so far failed to systematically sort out and sublimate this practice that has been going on in full swing. It must be admitted that due to the influence of regional differences and other factors, there is a big difference in the concrete measures and levels of development of the courts mediating in various places at present. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there is little systematic study in the academic field. If we are not dedicated to the whole description, we may choose some representative samples to focus on the problem and conduct a more in-depth analysis. In this regard, the “Year of the Conciliation” launched by the Higher People’s Court of Henan Province since January 2009 not only produced a good social effect but also had a more systematic and comprehensive attempt to regulate the socialization of the court, Representation. This journal tries to systematically review the mechanisms and practice types of court mediation by referring to the practice of Henan Province and referring to the experiences of other local courts. Based on the attitude of a hundred schools of thought, our articles on invited experts should be submitted in accordance with the usual academic norms, regardless of the academic point of view expressed. Therefore, all views of this topic do not represent the position of this magazine.