自愿原则作为调解的基本原则，这基本上是中外学者们的共识。虽然自愿原则获得普遍性的珍视，人们普遍反对对自愿原则的侵犯，但是国内的理论研究中却忽视了一个非常重要的问题：正如人们经由自然状态转入市民社会时，人所享有的原初自然权利会受到限制一样，调解中的自愿原则在制度化时，也会受到某些限制。国内理论研究对此问题的忽视，会导致对制度化后的自愿原则形态发生错误的认识，进而错误的批判一些立法与司法现象。比较法视角下对调解中自愿原则制度化前后样态的对比分析，将有助于避免此类错误。

Chinese and foreign scholars have consensus that Voluntary principle is a fundamental principle of mediation in the civil procedure. Although the value of the voluntary principle is cherished by all persons, but the domestic theoretical studies ignore one very important question: As one state changed from natural state to civil society, the original natural rights people enjoyed will be limited, the voluntary principle in mediation is institutionalized, it will be subject to some restrictions too. Ignoring this problem will lead to some mistakes, and thus wrongly critique some legislative and judicial phenomenon. With the help of comparative method, contrasting the state of voluntary principle before it being institutionalized and the state of voluntary principle after it being institutionalized will help avoid such mistakes.

一、引 言
二、调解自愿原则的原初样态
（一）调解启动上的原初样态
（二）调解演进中的原初样态
（三）调解终结时的原初样态
三、制度化后调解自愿原则的新生样态
（一）调解启动上的强制因素
（二）调解演进中的强制因素
（三）调解终结时的强制因素
四、对比分析及启示

• 杨海(中国 南京师范大学法学博士。) | Yang Hai