The Role Of Grass-roots Courts In The Governance Of Litigation Sources

From the central to the local,from the government to the courts,the expression of the term "litigation source governance" has attracted widespread attention from the beginning of its birth.Since its development,it has become a "fashion vocabulary" and has been directly used and presented in many adjudication documents.The governance of litigation sources has a broad and narrow meaning,and the purpose of resolving the source of disputes is a key part of national governance.According to existing practice,there is a "court response" model and a "court service" model for grass-roots courts to participate in the governance of litigation sources.In the "court response" model,judicial power is the adjudication power,all the work of the grass-roots courts is carried out with trial as the center,the role positioning is the dispute resolver,for the governance activities outside the litigation,limited participation,passive response;in the "court service" model,the grass-roots courts also have to undertake non-judicial functions,the role positioning is the service provider of grass-roots governance,and the litigation is also fully involved in providing judicial services.As a result,many risks have been raised: the concepts of litigation source governance and urban governance are intertwined,and the different functional orientations of "litigation source" and "governance" have led to the blurring of concepts.In practice,grass-roots courts have "taken the initiative" to inspect the work methods of secret visits and investigations,which has impacted the division of labor of state organs and exceeded the boundaries of active justice.In order to achieve a mediation rate,alleviate the pressure on the litigation terminal,and the overhead case registration system,it is easy to cause non-substantive resolution of disputes,affecting the authority and credibility of the court.This raises a series of questions: Why did the concept of source governance proposed? Also with the source of dispute resolution as the core,what is the relationship between litigation source governance and Fengqiao experience? Is it a new expression of changing soup without changing medicine,or a new concept that adapts to the development needs of the times? Why is the role of grass-roots courts in the governance of litigation sources emphasized? Is it legitimate for grassroots courts to participate in the governance of litigation sources? What should the lower courts do?The current Chinese society is undoubtedly a "transformation society",which has its characteristics compared to the so-called "mature society" : on the one hand,the cultural tradition of "no litigation" is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people,on the other hand,the awareness of rights has awakened,"good litigation" has become the norm,and the number of litigation cases has soared.The cultural tradition of "no litigation" is the soil for the governance of litigation sources to play a role,and the governance of litigation sources also responds to the expectations of "good litigation" for impartial and impartial third-party intervention.The discourse of the parties to the dispute is often non-legal,and mediation discourse is often used in the governance of litigation sources,and the use of mediation discourse can resonate with the same frequency as the parties.As well as in some special cases involving ethnicity,religion and other issues,the exertion of party and government forces is more conducive to the settlement of disputes,and the participation of multiple subjects in the pattern of litigation source governance is conducive to resolving disputes that rely on the strength of the court alone.Therefore,the reform plan for the governance of litigation sources proposes to adapt to the needs of the development of the times and is conducive to relieving the pressure of a small number of cases.The judiciary must have "temperance virtues" that can "do what they do and don’t do something",and there must also be "wisdom and courage virtue" that can "do something and do what they do".In view of this,we reiterate our trial-centered position that litigation and non-litigation procedures are linked and complementary functions.Within the Court,the judges’ other clerical work must not affect the work of the trial.The court takes the judicial function as the first priority,plays a good role as a dispute resolver,and through the analysis of the source of litigation,removes the surface clouds of the dispute and glimpses the deep logic of the dispute.Outside the courts,in the face of disputes that have already emerged,when the masses seek public power from the state,the courts actively participate in and integrate into the governance pattern of litigation source governance led by party committees,led by the administration,and condensing multiple social forces.