“糾紛治理”與“糾紛解決”：差異、共生與照應

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

“糾紛治理”與“糾紛解決” 是兩種不同的糾紛應對體系和方法。兩者各有其不同的理念、運作機制、行動基礎和運作邏輯。“糾紛解決”在理念上將糾紛視為社會矛盾的反映，傾向於更多通過黨的基層組織和群眾組織開展糾紛治理。在認識上，“糾紛治理”看重糾紛之間的關聯性，講究方法的多樣性和靈活性，不限於法律方式，不拘泥於法律對糾紛性質、處置程序和制度規定的約束；與此不同，“糾紛解決”則是由專職機構開展的，嚴格按照法律規定的程序和方式處置糾紛的一種體系。這種體系在理念上，將具體的法律糾紛視為相對獨立的糾紛事件，通過對糾紛性質的識別，將其納入相應的程序，按照既定的方式予以解決。“糾紛解決”的過程和方式受制於法律的嚴格規定和約束。與現實法律關係不斷演進以及對法律糾紛解決公正性要求相適應，“糾紛解決” 逐漸演進為一套高度自洽，專業化、技術化、體系化，有理論予以支撐的系統。在我國，這兩種體系都有自己存在的現實合理性，對於我國法治的推進都有各自存在的價值。基於自身體系的結構性特點，兩種體系各有所長。因此，我國應當堅持兩種體系的共生並存，避免一種體系同另一種體系的關係失調，並在運作中彼此相互照應、相得益彰，在社會實踐中追求自身的完善與發展。

“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.