Out of Eden
Out of Eden
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/796216
复制
发表时间：
1985-06
期刊：
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
Owen M. Fiss
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Owen M. Fiss
宗教可以鼓舞人心。它也会扭曲，而这正是它对麦克西尼亚和谢弗教授造成的影响。”这让他们误把外围当成了中心。在我之前的文章中，我试图接受一场寻求诉讼替代方案的运动。这一运动被称为ADR（替代性争议解决方案），由首席大法官伯格领导，目前正在席卷整个律师行业。它最近得到了哈佛大学校长德里克·博克（Derek Bok）和联邦民事诉讼规则咨询委员会的支持。1983年，咨询委员会设法修订了第16条规则，以加强初审法官在促成和解方面的作用，在过去两年中，委员会一直在进行一场坚决的运动，以修订第68条规则，为解决问题创造更多的压力。如果咨询委员会按照自己的方式行事，拒绝和解提议的一方将面临支付另一方律师费的危险。麦克西尼亚教授和谢弗教授现在以一种不同寻常的方式为这一运动发声。它们增添了宗教色彩。他们强调和解，而不是和解，似乎被一种以孤立的宗教团体为模式的社会组织概念所感动：“正义是我们发现的东西——你和我，苏格拉底说过——当我们一起走在一起，一起倾听，甚至彼此相爱，我们对正义是什么，正义从何而来充满好奇。”McThenia和Shaffer为可能恢复或维持爱情关系的社会机制发声，毫不奇怪，他们发现司法判决在这方面是一个相当无能的工具。我对反驳他们的请求没有特别的兴趣：我和其他人一样热爱爱情。麦克西尼亚和谢弗说的没错，
Religion can inspire. It can also distort, and this is precisely what it does for Professors McThenia and Shaffer.' It leads them to mistake the periphery for the center. In my earlier article' I tried to come to terms with a movement that seeks alternatives to litigation. Known as ADR ("Alternative Dispute Resolution"), this movement is headed by Chief Justice Burger and is now sweeping the bar. It recently received the endorsement of the President of Harvard, Derek Bok, and the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 1983, the Advisory Committee managed to revise Rule 16 to strengthen the hand of the trial judge in brokering settlements, and for the last two years the Committee has been engaged in a determined campaign to amend Rule 68 to create additional pressure for settlement. The party who rejects an offer of settlement would, if the Advisory Committee has its way, stand in jeopardy of paying the attorney's fees of the other side. Professors McThenia and Shaffer now lend their voices to this movement, but in an unusual way. They add a religious dimension. They emphasize reconciliation rather than settlement, and appear to be moved by a conception of social organization that takes the insular religious community as its model: "Justice is what we discover-you and I, Socrates said-when we walk together, listen together, and even love one another, in our curiosity about what justice is and where justice comes from."4 McThenia and Shaffer speak out on behalf of social mechanisms that might restore or preserve loving relationships and, not surprisingly, they find the judicial judgment a rather inept instrument for that purpose. I have no special interest in countering their plea: I am as much for love as the next person. What McThenia and Shaffer say is not wrong,