The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress


LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON THE PROCEDURE OF THECONCLUSION OF TREATIES

(Adopted at the 17th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the
Seventh National People's Congress on December 28, 1990, promulgated by
Order No. 37 of the President of the People's Republic of China on
December 28, 1990, and effective as of the same date)

Article 1
The present Law is enacted in accordance with the Constitution of the
People's Republic of China.
Article 2
This Law shall be applicable to bilateral or multilateral treaties and
agreements and other instruments of the nature of a treaty or agreement
concluded between the People's Republic of China and foreign states.
Article 3
The State Council, that is, the Central People's Government, of the
People's Republic of China shall conclude treaties and agreements with
foreign states.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's
Republic of China shall decide on the ratification and abrogation of
treaties and important agreements concluded with foreign states.
The President of the People's Republic of China shall, in accordance with
decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress,
ratify and abrogate treaties and important agreements concluded with
foreign states.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China shall,
under the leadership of the State Council, administer the specific affairs
concerning the conclusion of treaties and agreements with foreign states.
Article 4
The People's Republic of China shall conclude treaties and agreements with
other states in the name of:
(1) the People's Republic of China;
(2) the Government of the People's Republic of China;
(3) the governmental departments of the People's Republic of China.
Article 5
The decision to negotiate and sign treaties and agreements shall be made
according to the following procedures:
(1) in the case of a treaty or agreement to be negotiated and signed in
the name of the People's Republic of China, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs or the department concerned under the State Council in conjunction
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall make a recommendation and draw
up a draft treaty or agreement of the Chinese side and submit it to the
State Council for examination and decision;
(2) in the case of a treaty or agreement to be negotiated and signed in
the name of the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs or the department concerned under the State Council
shall make a recommendation and draw up a draft treaty or agreement of the
Chinese side and, after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
submit it to the State Council for examination and decision. In the case
of an agreement concerning a specific line of business, its Chinese draft
shall, with the consent of the State Council, be examined and decided upon
by the department concerned under the State Council or when necessary in
consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(3) agreements to be negotiated and signed in the name of a governmental
department of the People's Republic of China concerning matters within the
scope of functions and powers of the department concerned shall be decided
upon by the department itself or after consultation with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. In the case of an agreement relating to matters of major
importance or matters falling within the functions and powers of other
departments under the State Council, the department concerned shall submit
it by itself or after consultation with the other departments concerned
under the State Council, to the State Council for decision. The draft
agreement of the Chinese side shall be examined and decided upon by the
department concerned or when necessary in consultation with the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.
When major modification in the Chinese draft of a treaty or agreement
already examined and decided upon by the State Council are necessary as a
result of negotiation, the revised draft shall be submitted to the State
Council for examination and decision.
Article 6
Representatives for negotiating and signing treaties or agreements shall
be appointed according to the following procedures:
(1) In the case of a treaty or agreement to be concluded in the name of
the People's Republic of China or the Government of the People's Republic
of China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the department concerned
under the State Council shall submit a report to the State Council for the
appointment of a representative. The full powers of the representative
shall be signed by the Premier of the State Council, but may also be
signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
(2) In the case of an agreement to be concluded in the name of a
governmental department of the People's Republic of China, a
representative shall be appointed by the head of the department concerned.
The letter of authorization for the representative shall be signed by the
head of the department. Where the head of a department signs an agreement
concluded in the name of the governmental department, and where the
contracting parties agree that it is necessary for the head of the
department to produce full powers, the full powers shall be signed by the
Premier of the State Council, but may also be signed by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The following persons shall dispense with full powers for negotiating and
signing treaties and agreements:
(1) the Premier of the State Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
(2) the head of a diplomatic mission of the People's Republic of China who
negotiates and signs treaties and agreements concluded between China and
the state to which he is accredited, unless it is otherwise agreed by the
contracting parties;
(3) the head of a governmental department of the People's Republic of
China who negotiates and signs the agreements concluded in the name of his
department, unless it is otherwise agreed by the contracting parties;
(4) the person, dispatched to an international conference or accredited to
an international organization by the People's Republic of China, who is at
the same time the representative for negotiating treaties or agreements in
that conference or organization, unless it is otherwise agreed by the
conference or otherwise provided for in the constitution of the
organization.
Article 7
The ratification of treaties and important agreements shall be decided
upon by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
The treaties and important agreements referred to in the preceding
paragraph are as follows:
(1) treaties of friendship and cooperation, treaties of peace and similar
treaties of a political nature;
(2) treaties and agreements relating to territory and delimitation of
boundary lines;
(3) treaties and agreements relating to judicial assistance and
extradition;
(4) treaties and agreements which contain stipulations inconsistent with
the laws of the People's Republic of China;
(5) treaties and agreements which are subject to ratification as agreed by
the contracting parties; and
(6) other treaties and agreements subject to ratification.
After the signing of a treaty or an important agreement, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs or the department concerned under the State Council in
conjunction with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall submit it to the
State Council for examination and verification; the State Council shall
then refer it to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
for decision on ratification; the President of the People's Republic of
China shall ratify it in accordance with the decision of the Standing
Committee of the National People's Congress.
After the ratification of a bilateral treaty or an important bilateral
agreement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall execute the formalities
for the exchange of the instruments of ratification with the other
contracting party. After the ratification of a multilateral treaty or an
important multilateral agreement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall
execute the formalities for the deposit of the instrument of ratification
with the depositary state or international organization. The instrument of
ratification shall be signed by the President of the People's Republic of
China and countersigned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Article 8
After the signing of the agreements and other instruments of the nature of
a treaty which do not fall under paragraph 2, Article 7 of this Law and
which are subject to approval as prescribed by the State Council or as
agreed by the contracting parties, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the
departments concerned under the State Council in conjunction with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall submit them to the State Council for
approval. After the approval of agreements and other instruments of the
nature of a treaty, in the case of a bilateral one, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs shall execute the formalities for the exchange of the
instruments of approval with the other contracting party or for mutual
notification of the approval by diplomatic notes. In the case of a
multilateral one, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall execute the
formalities for the deposit of the instrument of approval with the
depositary state or international organization concerned. The instrument
of approval shall be signed by the Premier of the State Council, but may
also be signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Article 9
After the signing of the agreements which need no decision on ratification
by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or approval by
the State Council, the agreements shall be submitted by the departments
concerned under the State Council to the State Council for the record,
except those agreements concluded in the name of the governmental
departments of the People's Republic of China which are to be submitted by
these departments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for registration.
Article 10
If the two contracting parties need to go through different domestic legal
procedures for the entry into force of the same treaty or agreement, the
said treaty or agreement shall enter into force after the accomplishment
by the two parties of their respective legal procedures and the mutual
notification by diplomatic notes.
After the signing of the treaties and agreements listed in the preceding
paragraph, the formalities of ratification, approval, entry on the record
or registration shall be executed as the case requires in accordance with
Articles 7, 8 or 9 of this Law. The formalities of notification by note
shall be completed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Article 11
The decision to accede to multilateral treaties or agreements shall be
made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the
State Council as the case requires. The procedures for acceding to
multilateral treaties and agreements shall be as follows:
(1) to accede to a multilateral treaty or an important multilateral
agreement listed in Paragraph 2, Article 7 of this Law, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs or the department concerned under the State Council in
conjunction with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall make a
recommendation after examination and submit it to the State Council for
examination and verification; the State Council shall then refer it to the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for decision on
accession. The instrument of accession shall be signed by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and the specific formalities executed by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs;
(2) to accede to a multilateral treaty or agreement other than those
listed in Paragraph 2, Article 7 of this Law, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs or the department concerned under the State Council in conjunction
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall make a recommendation after
examination and submit it to the State Council for decision on accession.
The instrument of accession shall be signed by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and the specific formalities executed by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
Article 12
The decision to accept a multilateral treaty or an agreement shall be made
by the State Council.
In the case of a multilateral treaty or agreement containing clauses of
acceptance which is signed by the Chinese representative or does not
require any signature, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the department
concerned under the State Council in conjunction with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs shall make a recommendation after examination and submit
it to the State Council for decision on acceptance. The instrument of
acceptance shall be signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the
specific formalities executed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Article 13
A bilateral treaty or agreement concluded by the People's Republic of
China with a foreign state shall be done in the Chinese language and the
official language of the other contracting party, both texts being equally
authentic. When necessary, a text in the language of a third state agreed
upon by the two contracting parties may be executed in addition as a
third, equally authentic, official text or an unofficial text for
reference. It may be stipulated by agreement of the two contracting
parties that the third text shall prevail in case of divergence of
interpretation of the treaty or agreement.
For agreements on specific lines of business and treaties and agreements
concluded with international organizations, a single language fairly
commonly used internationally may also be used by agreement of the two
contracting parties or in accordance with the provisions of the
constitutions of the international organizations concerned.
Article 14
Signed originals of bilateral treaties and agreements concluded in the
name of the People's Republic of China or the Government of the People's
Republic of China and copies of multilateral treaties and agreements
certified as true by the depositary states or international organizations
concerned shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Signed
originals of bilateral agreements concluded in the name of the
governmental departments of the People's Republic of China shall be
deposited with these departments.
Article 15
A treaty or an important agreement of which the Standing Committee of the
National People's Congress has decided on ratification or accession shall
be published in the bulletin of the Standing Committee of the National
People's Congress. The measures for publishing other treaties and
agreements shall be made by the State Council.
Article 16
Treaties and agreements concluded by the People's Republic of China shall
be compiled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs into a collection of the
Treaties of the People's Republic of China.
Article 17
Treaties and agreements concluded by the People's Republic of China shall
be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
United Nations Charter. Treaties and agreements concluded by the People's
Republic of China that require registration with other international
organizations shall be registered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or
the departments concerned under the State Council in accordance with the
respective constitutions of the international organizations.
Article 18
The procedures for the conclusion of a treaty or an agreement with an
international organization by the People's Republic of China shall follow
this Law and the constitution of the relevant international organization.
Article 19
The procedures for amendment to, abrogation of and withdrawal from
treaties and agreements concluded by the People's Republic of China shall
follow mutatis mutandis the procedures for the conclusion of the treaties
and agreements in question.
Article 20
The State Council may make regulations in accordance with this Law for its
implementation.
Article 21
This Law shall enter into force as of the date of promulgation.


Important Notice:
This English document is coming from "LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNING FOREIGN-RELATED MATTERS" (1991.7)
which is compiled by the Brueau of Legislative Affairs of the State
Council of the People's Republic of China, and is published by the China
Legal System Publishing House.
In case of discrepancy, the original version in Chinese shall prevail.

论民事调解案件的再审与再审事由的确定
王丹、肖文
在民事诉讼过程中，法院对案件进行调解是我国民事诉讼制度一大特色。在纠纷的彻底解决和当事人关系的修复上，调解比裁决（包括判决和裁定，下同）具有更大的优势。调解既是我国司法制度的优良传统，也是民事诉讼法的基本原则之一，它在司法实践中发挥着十分积极和重要的作用。 根据《民事诉讼法》（以下简称民诉法）的规定，调解的基本原则是“自愿合法”，自愿是指调解协议的内容是当事人自主、真实的意思表示，合法是指调解协议的内容不违反法律规定。但是，当事人受到胁迫、欺诈致使其调解意愿的背离，当事人恶意串通导致调解协议侵犯第三人合法权益，调解协议内容违法民事法律或政策规定等情况的存在，使调解结果不具备合法性和正当性，对此只能通过再审程序进行纠正。
一、民事调解案件再审的启动
1、启动主体
从民诉法规定本身来看，只有当事人有权对调解案件申请再审（第182条），通过院长审判监督程序、上级法院提审或指令、检察机关抗诉进入再审的途径只是针对裁决而言的（第177、187条）。
在司法实践中，最高人民法院通过一系列的司法解释，对调解案件的再审启动主体范围进行了扩大。《法院调解案件再审的批复》中规定，“人民法院根据民事诉讼法的有关规定精神，可以按照审判监督程序再审。”据此，做出调解的法院及其上级法院均有权对调解案件主动提起再审。
再审程序是法院对于已经发生法律效力的、有重大瑕疵的判决进行再次审理的一种非常途径。其“非常程序”属性，是就其与普通救济程序的区别而言的，因为再审程序只能用于例外情况的救济，而不能像普通救济程序那样被频繁启用。民事再审事由就是指能够启动民事再审程序的法定理由。可以说，民事再审事由是控制再审程序启动的一项最重要的措施。再审程序，是为了纠正生效裁判中的错误而对案件再次进行审理的程序。再审程序的审理对象是已经发生法律效力正在执行和已经执行完毕的裁判，其目的就在于纠正生效裁判中的严重错误，保障司法裁判的公正性和权威性。如果说司法是社会公正的最后一道防线，那么，再审程序就是司法正义的最后一道防线。再审程序作为一个非正常的审级程序，其性质不同于一审和二审程序。
当事人向法院起诉，法律并未规定需要具备何种具体的事由，只要符合起诉条件即可，法院对当事人提出的事实理由并不做实质性审查，而如果当事人对一审裁判不服只要在法定期限内上诉就能启动二审程序。但再审程序的启动则有所不同，由于民事再审程序会打破既定的终审判决的形式上的确定力和既判力双层保护，动摇法律裁判的稳定性和权威性，故必须对民事再审程序的启动加以严格的限制。通过立法将民事再审事由法定化，目的是为了实现纠正错误裁判与保持生效裁判稳定性之间的平衡关系。
而最高人民法院《关于人民检察院对民事调解书提出抗诉应否受理问题的批复》（法释［1999］4号）以民诉法没有规定检察院可以对调解书提出抗诉为由，规定对调解书提出的抗诉不予受理。对此，如果单纯从民诉法的规定出发，此批复尚无不妥，因为诉讼程序中司法机关的权力范围应当是由法律明确规定的，法无授权则禁止。但是如果对比上一个批复的规定来说，最高人民法院并没有严格遵循这个原则，有“区别待遇”之嫌，因为民诉法也没有规定、或者可以从条文中推论出法院有权主动对调解案件予以再审的权力，最高法院越司法解释权限而扩大了自身的法定权力范围，同时相对而言又不对等地限制了检察院的权力，因此该规定在实践中屡有争议。
案外人有权对调解案件申请再审。《审监程序的解释》第五条规定案外人对调解书确定的执行标的物主张权利，且无法提起新的诉讼解决争议的，可以申请再审。 综上，与裁决案件相比，调解案件再审的启动主体缺少检察院。当事人具有申请权是其权利使然。调解协议侵犯案外人合法权益时，在其不能通过其他途径解决的情况下，赋予案外人再审申请权予以救济也属应当。在当事人和案外人申请权存在的情况下，赋予法院主动启动再审权更强调的应当是国家利益和公共利益的考量（《审监程序的解释》第30条）。但是基于同样的出发点，承认检察院对调解案件的抗诉权则更有利于对国家利益和公共利益的保护，因为一方面存在法院自我纠错的惰性，另一方面这也是作为法律监督机关职能发挥的题中之义。
2、启动事由
启动事由是指调解结案的民事案件，存在何种缺陷时可以对之立案再审。根据现行法律规定，调解案件再审的启动事由针对启动主体的不同而有区别。
民诉法第182条规定，当事人有证据证明调解违反自愿原则或者调解协议的内容违反法律的，可以申请再审。违反自愿原则是指当事人的调解意愿是违背其真实意思表示。当事人违反自愿原则，不仅仅是在受到对方当事人胁迫、欺诈做出的意思表示，还必须清醒地认识到存在法院为调解而调解现象，法官“以劝压调”、“以拖压调”、“以判压调”、“以诱促调”等方式迫使当事人接受调解协议，这些强迫调解和变相强迫调解的做法，不仅侵犯了当事人的合法权益，而且违背了调解制度应有的本质。调解的权利基础是当事人的处分权，即当事人对自己的民事权利予以自主地变更、转让、放弃的权利，但是处分权的内容和行使方式都不能违反法律的禁止性规定，法律禁止之处则无权利。调解协议内容若违反法律的禁止性规定，则当事人通过调解处分和取得的权利都不具备正当性基础。
法院对民事调解案件启动再审的事由存在变化。《法院调解案件再审的批复》规定调解书确有错误又必须再审的，法院可以再审。从调解案件再审的实践看，只要不是违反自愿原则的调解，当事人提起再审申请的案件很少，这是因为当事人在调解协议中处分主要是其切身的实体权利，正常情况下基于错误的判断而导致调解协议侵犯其自身合法权益的情况非常少见。该批复主要针对的应当是调解协议侵犯了国家、集体或者他人合法权益的情况，依据当时的法律规定，案外人没有权利申请再审（包括裁决和调解），此时若不赋予法院主动依职权启动再审的权力，则违法的调解协议无法予以撤销，相关合法权益得不到有效地保护。2008年制定的《审监程序的解释》第三十条对此则予以进一步的明确规定：“人民法院发现原判决、裁定、调解协议有损害国家利益、公共利益等确有错误情形的，应当依照民事诉讼法第一百七十七条的规定提起再审”。因此，法院在对调解案件启动再审时，应当严格将启动事由限制在此解释规定之内，尽量避免扩大化的倾向。因为调解协议是当事人行使诉权和处分实体权利的结果，在当事人自己没有异议时，只要调解协议不存在侵犯他人合法权益的情况，法院就不应当主动审查是否违反自愿合法原则，否则将侵犯当事人诉权，违背民事诉讼不告不理的原则。
案外人申请再审是《审监程序的解释》增加的情形。该解释第五条规定案外人对调解书确定的执行标的物主张权利，且无法提起新的诉讼解决争议的，有权申请再审。鉴于民事诉讼中法院角色的被动性，对当事人没有争议的事实，法院一般情况下都会予以审查，有时这会导致当事人恶意串通，虚构事实以侵害他人合法权益的情形出现，而案外人没有参加诉讼，不可能对此提出异议，法院亦缺乏审查的主动性，因此赋予案外人对此类案件的再审申请权是为了更有效地保护其合法权益的需要，因为相对于法院主动审查启动再审，权利人对自己的权利更敏感，保护也更有效率。但是需要注意的是另一个条件，即无法通过新的诉讼解决争议，如果案外人能够通过另案提起侵权等诉讼对其权益予以救济时，则不应当再通过对调解案件的再审来纠错。
民事再审事由包括实体性再审事由和程序性再审事由。所谓实体性再审事由是指在原审裁判中认定事实和适用法律错误，损害了当事人的实体权益和诉讼实体公正性而能够提起再审的错误情形。程序性再审事由是指原审裁判严重违反诉讼程序，损害了当事人的基本程序权益和诉讼程序公正性而能够提起再审的错误情形。
在正常的审级程序中，如果法院做出的生效裁判严重侵犯了当事人合法的程序权利和实体权利，诉讼的司法公正难以实现，为了保障司法公正，许多国家特别是大陆法系国家的诉讼制度中都设置了再审这一特殊的救济手段。再审程序是确保司法公正的重要手段，根据诉讼法理论，司法公正包括实体公正和程序公正两个方面的内容。再审程序维护司法公正，不仅要求维护裁判实体上的公正，而且需要维护裁判做出过程的程序公正。这就要求我们在适用再审程序纠正案件错误时，坚持实体与程序并重的观念，既要纠正案件在认定事实上发生的错误和适用法律上发生的错误，还要纠正案件在作出裁判的过程中的严重程序性违法行为。再审程序启动的前提是裁判存在错误和瑕疵，没有裁判错误和瑕疵就无须启动再审程序，而民事再审事由作为启动再审程序的钥匙，是原审裁判中的严重错误和瑕疵的立法集中体现，其构成内容就包括实体和程序这两方面的错误情形，而不能重实体、轻程序，只纠正实体上的错误而无视程序上的瑕疵。程序公正价值的独立性也决定了违反法定程序的情形应当独立成为再审事由。
3、启动时限
启动时限是指调解书生效后多长时期内可以对其进行再审。和对裁决案件启动再审相同，法律也没有规定法院启动调解案件再审的期限。
民诉法第184条只是规定了当事人对生效裁决申请再审的期限是二年，并没有规定对调解案件申请再审的期限，在相关的司法解释也没有明确的规定。但是运用整体解释的法律解释方法，应当能够得出相同的结论。因为裁决和调解书均是民事诉讼的程序结果，都是审判机关对当事人诉权的回应和实体权利的认定，区别只在于是否体现了当事人的合意。法律规定当事人对生效裁决和调解书不服时的申请再审权都是对其权利的救济，二者并无实质的差别，对该权利的限制也应当是一致的，因此当事人对调解案件申请再审的期限也应是二年。但现行法上缺乏当事人对调解案件申请再审的期限规定的状况应当引起立法者的注意，在对民诉法进行修订时应予以明确规定。
《审监程序的解释》第五条规定案外人申请再审的期限是调解书生效后二年，或者自知道或应当知道利益被损害之日其三个月。和当事人申请期限相比，案外人的申请期限则受到了更短的期限限制，最长在调解书生效后二年内申请，如果是知道或应当知道其利益为他人的调解协议所侵害时，则只能在三个月内申请。此限制是为了督促权利人及时行使权利，维护法院司法文书的公信力和安定性，保护市场交易秩序的目的。
再审程序价值基础对民事再审事由的设置有着至关重要的影响，再审程序的价值基础决定了再审纠错的有限性，即是说，再审程序不可能为所有的司法错误皆提供相应的补救，而只能是有限纠错。民事再审事由作为启动再审程序的依据，必须以再审程序的价值基础为指导才能得到合理的设置从而保证在司法实践中的良性运作。
再审程序的价值基础主要反映在对程序的公正、效率与安定三种基本价值的选择和平衡上，因为这三大价值之间存在着明显的冲突与矛盾。公正价值要求法官应当客观地审理每一个案件，而且不容许发生错判，一旦发现就必须全面地纠正；效率价值要求法官处理案件应当做到速度快、成本低，绝不允许诉讼的反复与拖延；而安定价值则倾向于维护裁判的稳定性，裁判一经生效即使发现疏漏仍不能更改，该价值是既判力的重要内容。再审程序作为一种正常审级程序之外的特殊救济程序，在力图纠正个案裁判的错误和瑕疵，维护司法公正的同时，还必须保障诉讼整体的司法权威，确保程序效率和安定价值的实现。司法公正和司法权威之间是紧密相连的，没有司法公正为基础的司法权威，是虚假的司法权威，是没有生命力的司法权威。而缺乏司法权威，司法公正也就失去其应有之义。因为过分的追求公正而无视程序的安定，再审很可能出现永无止境的尴尬局面，生效判决会有被随意推翻的可能，那么社会关系的和谐稳定就会存在很大的隐患。同时，民事再审程序在追求和实现公正价值时，不能忽视、放弃司法的效率价值，而应当尽可能地追求和实现效率价值。因为徒有公正价值没有效率价值或者不能兼顾效率价值的司法不是现代意义上的司法。因此，再审程序的构建应当兼顾公正、效率和安定三大价值并且力图协调和平衡三种之间的矛盾，这也是再审程序改革过程中的重点和难点。
二、调解案件再审的审理
1、调解案件再审的审级
和上述的启动期限问题一样，民诉法对于调解案件再审的审级没有明确的规定。参照民诉法第一百八十六条对裁决再审审级的规定，对调解案件再审的审级也应该予以相同的认定，即再审的审级与做出调解书的审级相同（本院再审），但上级法院提审的再审应按照二审程序审理。
2、调解案件再审的审理范围
根据启动主体的不同，法律对调解案件启动再审的事由也有不同的规定，相应地再审审理范围也应当存在区别。
在法院内部审理过程中存在“立审分离”的机制，再审案件的立案审查和审理分属不同的庭室或合议庭。立案环节主要审查当事人、案外人的申请理由是否符合法律规定的立案条件，调解书是否违反自愿合法原则、是否侵犯了他人的合法权益。根据民诉法的相关规定，我国的再审立案审查应当是实质审查，只有经“审查属实”存在违法事由的调解案件才能够立案再审。但是，由于立案环节不会完全按照普通审理程序的要求，给予双方当事人充分的举证、质证、辩论的机会，使其不可能、也无权直接做出确定调解书违法而予以撤销的裁决。在实践中，立案裁定一般只是表述予以立案再审并终止调解书的执行，避免直接对调解书的错误与否做出评判。这就产生了再审审理中应否审理启动事由是否成立的问题，因为区别于对裁决的再审，裁决是法院依据审理查证的事实予以适用法律的结果，在事实和法律适用上均可能存在错误，再审的审理范围主要是审查原审裁决在事实和法律适用上是否正确，正确的予以维持，错误的予以纠正。但调解是在法院还没有对实体纠纷涉及的事实和法律适用予以认定的情况下当事人合意的结果，调解案件再审的特殊在于其启动事由可能是脱离于当事人实体纠纷之外的，如违背自愿原则，侵犯国家、公共或他人合法权益，而这些事由有决定着调解是否合法有效，因此，调解案件的再审审理范围应当有两个部分组成：启动事由和实体纠纷。
但是，将启动事由纳入再审审理范围在现行法律规定的范畴内存在一定的冲突，一方面只有确定调解书错误时才能进入再审，那么再行审理启动事由是否成立则属重复审理；另一方面没有先行裁决对立案审查结论予以确认，导致再审又不能回避该问题。其实，不但调解案件如此，裁决案件再审的立案审查和再审审理范围确定上也有类似的情况。在立审分离的机制中，如何有效地协调再审立案和再审审理的职能分工也是亟待理清的问题。
经审理确认调解书存在错误时，调解书依法应当予以撤销。同时，再审审理仍应当围绕当事人的实体纠纷，按照正常的审判程序进行审理，对此就不在赘述。但需要指出的是，在再审中仍然可以遵循自愿合法原则对案件予以调解。
在对调解案件再审的处理上，按照二审程序审理的，可以依据查证的事实直接判决。但如果调解是在一审中做出的，二审法院予以提审的再审案件，则不宜直接判决，因为原审法院并没有针对当事人的诉争予以法律上的判断（裁决），二审直接裁决可能妨碍当事人诉权的完全行使，因此撤销调解书、发回一审法院重新审理更能保护当事人的诉权。
调解由于体现了当事人的意思自治，在新的历史时期，作为司法评判的重要组成部分，其对于纠纷的解决和社会关系的恢复上继续发挥着非常积极的作用。因此对于调解案件的再审一定要慎重，无论是立案审查，还是再审审理都要严格掌握，避免对调解案件的宽泛处理而影响这一具有优良传统的纠纷解决机制作用的发挥。
三、我国的立法现状
（一）修改后的《民事诉讼法》中关于再审事由的规定
全国人大常委会于2007年10月28日审议通过了《关于修改的决定》（以下简称《修改决定》），并已于2008年4月1日起开始实施。再审事由的修订可堪称这次民事诉讼法修订的重点和亮点。上述三类再审事由中，法院自行再审的事由并没有任何变动，检察院的抗诉事由与当事人的申请再审的事由相统一了，对于统一后的再审事由笔者认为大致可以划分为如下三个部分：
第一，保留原有的民事再审事由。修订后的民事诉讼法保留了3项事由：有新的证据，足以推翻原判决、裁定的；原判决、裁定适用法律确有错误的；对违反法定程序可能影响案件正确判决、裁定的情形，或者审判人员在审理该案件时有贪污受贿、徇私舞弊、枉法裁判行为的。这些都是对原有法律的继承和沿用。
第二，新增的实体性再审事由。具体包括以下5项：原判决、裁定认定的基本事实缺乏证据证明的；原判决、裁定认定事实的主要证据是伪造的；对审理案件需要的证据，当事人因客观原因不能自行收集，书面申请人民法院调查收集，人民法院未调查收集的；原判决、裁定遗漏或者超出诉讼请求的；据以作出原判决、裁定的法律文书被撤销或变更的。这些事由是关于证据真实性、证据收集、裁判依据方面的规定，都是可能对实体真实性造成影响的情形。
第三，新增的程序性再审事由。具体包括以下6项：原判决、裁定认定事实的主要证据未经质证的；违反法律规定，管辖错误的、审判组织的组成不合法或者依法应当回避的审判人员没有回避的；无诉讼行为能力人未经法定代理人代为诉讼或者应当参加诉讼的当事人，因不能归责于本人或者其诉讼代理人的事由，未参加诉讼的；违反法律规定，剥夺当事人辩论权利的；未经传票传唤，缺席判决的。这些事由都是严重破坏程序正当性的情形，此次修正案将其纳入再审事由充分体现了立法者程序法治意识的增强。
（二）修改后的民事再审事由的突破
本次立法修正，结合我国目前的政治、经济、文化和法制发展水平等现实国情以及审判实践，针对民事诉讼中容易发生错误的因素与环节，兼顾传统和借鉴各国先进立法体例，遵循宽严适度原则，将应当再审的情形予以列举。从内容上看发生了很大的变化，其进步之处也是显而易见的，具体表现在以下几个方面：
第一，修改后的再审事由更加强调程序正当性的重要性，充分体现了立法机关对当事人程序权利的保护和对程序公正的重视。例如，这些新增的程序性事由就着重强调了当事人在诉讼中的合法参与权，并且使当事人的辩论权利落到了实处，突显了立法机关对当事人程序权利的重视。这些程序性事由在内容上是将程序问题和实体问题相剥离的，即是说只要是违反法定的这些程序，不管是否对实体造成影响都应启动再审，这是对程序正义独立性价值的一种肯定。
第二，进一步细化和补充了作为裁判依据的证据方面的再审事由。这一变化使得再审事由的表述更为科学准确，更便于实践操作，也更有利于当事人合法权益的保障。例如，将原有的“原判决、裁定认定事实的主要证据不足的”事由修正为“原判决、裁定认定的基本事实缺乏证据证明的”事由, 笔者认为“缺乏”相对于“不足”而言更容易把握一些，因为“不足”的认定标准主观性太强，而“缺乏”则更显客观，这样细化后主观标准变成了客观标准,理解空间被明确限定,败诉的一方当事人援引这些事由申请再审的可能性不是增加了,反而是减少了。
第三，从总体上看，再审事由的认定标准较原来的概括抽象变得更为具体确定。这不仅使得再审事由的涵盖范围发生了由面到点的转变，同时也在一定程度上避免了裁判法官和案件当事人对其理解认识上的分歧。从逻辑上分析再审事由的表述越是概括,其涵盖面就越广泛,被纳入再审的案件在数量上就越多；相反,再审事由的表述越是具体清晰,表面上看条款确实更多，这看似是把再审之门推得更开了,但实际上却并非如此，因为再审事由一旦具体确定，之前的很多情形自然就被过滤掉了，实际上是限制了再审的范围。可以说，再审事由表述的概括抽象程度与其涵盖面的范围是成正比的。再审事由认定标准的具体确定使得裁判法官和案件当事人对其理解认识能最大限度地统一，这不仅有利于当事人申请再审，而且明确了人民法院审查立案的标准，缩小裁判法官主观判断任意性的空间，从而在一定程度上避免其利用再审事由概括抽象而产生的歧义作为拒绝当事人再审申请的合法托词而对应当再审的案件不予再审的情形，从而更加切实的保障当事人申请再审的权利。
第四，此次民事诉讼法的修改细化并统一了当事人申请再审和人民检察院提起抗诉的事由。虽然，此次修改保留了提起再审程序主体的多元化，但在内容上产生了较大的突破，即在立法上统一了当事人申请再审和人民检察院提起抗诉的事由，并且将之前当事人申请再审的5种情形和人民检察院提起抗诉的4种情形具体化为现在的13种情形，可以说修改后的内容较之以前更为合理明确。这样的修改思路是值得肯定的，因为只有细化再审事由，当事人申请再审的边界才能清晰，检察院抗诉的案件范围和法院受理的标准才能确定。也就是说，事由的此般变化不仅便于当事人申请再审以及法院依职权自行再审，同时统一后的再审事由也有利于检察院抗诉，因为，既然当事人申诉时，有新的证据，足以推翻原判决、裁定，法院应当提起再审，那么，当检察院遇有此种情形时，也可以提起抗诉。以往检察机关只能向法院发出检察建议书而不能直接提起抗诉，而民事诉讼法规定检察机关提起抗诉的，人民法院应当再审，而对于检察机关的检察建议书却未作此规定，基于此，在司法实践中时常会出现法院针对检察机关的检察建议书不予理睬和不予回应的情形，这也是引起检法两家矛盾的因素之一，而修改之后将其列入人民检察院的抗诉事由中，至少是在立法上为解决这类问题扫清了障碍。这一修改进一步完善了检察机关法律监督的规定，使检察机关对法院审判工作的监督力度更加合理。
（三）民事再审事由规定的不足
1、现行立法对新证据的类型未加以任何限制。此次民事诉讼法修改并未对民事再审事由全盘更新，仍然保留了其中的部分事由，而保留不变就意味着一些重要的难题仍然存在。其中“有新的证据，足以推翻原判决、裁定的”事由就是长期以来备受学者们批驳的一项实体性再审事由。不可否认，新证据很可能决定着一场诉讼的胜负，但是其规定的不合理又很可能使一场诉讼在什么时候能真正停下来成为未知数。在我国现行立法中关于新证据的规定所存在的问题尤为突出。
从立法上讲，该项事由的设置本身就不符合举证责任原则和举证时限制度的要求。我国《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称《证据规定》）设立了举证时限制度，当事人在举证期限内不提交证据材料，将导致证据失权的法律后果。《证据规定》也对新证据做出了界定，即是指原审庭审结束后新发现的证据，在举证时限过后，仍允许当事人提供新的证据，是对举证时限制度本身的一种特别限制，从诉讼效率及效益原则出发，允许再审提出新证据不能激励当事人在一、二审中积极收集证据，很可能助长当事人进行恶意诉讼，搞证据袭击，因新证据的随时提出而随时启动再审程序，无疑会大大拖延诉讼的进程，导致“诉累”现象的产生，增加法院及当事人为诉讼所支付的成本，这与我国诉讼资源有限的现状是不相适应的。这“实际上是将应当由当事人承担的法律后果转嫁给了审判机关，这显然是不合理的。”这也在一定程度上造成举证时限制度的虚设。在司法实践中，无论是当事人向法院申请再审的案件还是检察机关提起民事抗诉的再审案件，其中的大多数都是因出现新的证据而引起。而且近年来，此类案件数量呈不断上升趋势，法院负担也是可想而知的。
2、随着中国法治的不断发展，司法水平也不断提高，立法者也逐步开始认识并接受程序正义独立价值的重要性，并在之后的立法过程中开始强调对程序正义的维护和实现。但在重视程序正义的同时新的问题也不断出现，主要集中在条文表述和解释适用上。就程序性事由而言主要有两个方面：