Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Domarens dilemma - motstridiga krav vid förlikningsförhandlingar enligt 42 kap. 17 § 1 st RB

Persson, Mikaela LU (2025) LAGF03 20251
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats undersöker spänningar mellan civilprocessens funktioner i svensk rätt när domaren utövar sitt handlingsutrymme vid förlikningsförhandlingar. Studien fokuserar på 42 kap. 17 § 1 st Rättegångsbalken (RB), som förpliktigar domaren att verka för förlikning, och analyserar hur dessa spänningar kommer till uttryck genom ”Göteborgsmodellen”, en förlikningsmetod som innebär enskilda samtal med parterna.
Uppsatsen tillämpar koherensteori för att analysera tre huvudfunktioner inom civilprocessen: rättsskyddsfunktionen, handlingsdirigeringsfunktionen och konfliktlösningsfunktionen. Analysen visar på grundläggande spänningar mellan dessa funktioner som skapar koherensbrister inom rättssystemet.
Resultaten visar att 42 kap. 17 § 1 st RB... (More)
Denna uppsats undersöker spänningar mellan civilprocessens funktioner i svensk rätt när domaren utövar sitt handlingsutrymme vid förlikningsförhandlingar. Studien fokuserar på 42 kap. 17 § 1 st Rättegångsbalken (RB), som förpliktigar domaren att verka för förlikning, och analyserar hur dessa spänningar kommer till uttryck genom ”Göteborgsmodellen”, en förlikningsmetod som innebär enskilda samtal med parterna.
Uppsatsen tillämpar koherensteori för att analysera tre huvudfunktioner inom civilprocessen: rättsskyddsfunktionen, handlingsdirigeringsfunktionen och konfliktlösningsfunktionen. Analysen visar på grundläggande spänningar mellan dessa funktioner som skapar koherensbrister inom rättssystemet.
Resultaten visar att 42 kap. 17 § 1 st RB utgör ett balansförsök snarare än en lösning på funktionsspänningarna. Lagstiftningen prioriterar konfliktlösning samtidigt som den försöker bevara rättsskydd genom flexibla skyddsmekanismer, men underordnar i stor utsträckning handlingsdirigering till förmån för parternas intressen. Göteborgsmodellen, som kännetecknas av att domaren för enskilda samtal med parterna, konkretiserar och förstärker dessa spänningar genom att potentiellt äventyra domarens neutralitet och skapa informationshanteringsutmaningar.
Studien drar slutsatsen att spänningarna återspeglar en inneboende hierarki mellan civilprocessens funktioner snarare än brister i systemet. Medan konfliktlösning prioriteras och rättsskydd balanseras genom anpassningsbara mekanismer, förblir handlingsdirigering underprioriterad. Koherensanalysen visar att i stället för att skapa ömsesidig förstärkning mellan funktionerna, genererar det nuvarande systemet konkurrerande logiker som domaren måste navigera utan systematisk vägledning. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis examines tensions between civil procedure functions in Swedish law when judges exercise their discretion during settlement negotiations. The study focuses on Chapter 42, Section 17, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (RB), which obliges judges to facilitate settlements, and analyzes how these tensions manifest through the "Gothenburg model", a settlement method involving separate discussions with each party.
Using coherence theory, the thesis analyzes three main functions of civil procedure: the legal protection function, the behavior guidance function, and the conflict resolution function. The analysis reveals fundamental tensions between these functions that create coherence deficits within the legal system.
The... (More)
This thesis examines tensions between civil procedure functions in Swedish law when judges exercise their discretion during settlement negotiations. The study focuses on Chapter 42, Section 17, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (RB), which obliges judges to facilitate settlements, and analyzes how these tensions manifest through the "Gothenburg model", a settlement method involving separate discussions with each party.
Using coherence theory, the thesis analyzes three main functions of civil procedure: the legal protection function, the behavior guidance function, and the conflict resolution function. The analysis reveals fundamental tensions between these functions that create coherence deficits within the legal system.
The findings demonstrate that Chapter 42, Section 17, Paragraph 1 RB represents a balancing attempt rather than a solution to functional tensions. The legislation prioritizes conflict resolution while attempting to preserve legal protection through flexible safeguards, but largely subordinates behavior guidance to party autonomy. The Gothenburg model, characterized by judges conducting separate conversations with parties, concretizes and amplifies these tensions by potentially compromising judicial neutrality and creating information management challenges.
The study concludes that the tensions reflect an inherent hierarchy among civil procedure functions rather than systematic defects. While conflict resolution takes precedence and legal protection is balanced through adaptive mechanisms, behavior guidance remains marginalized. The coherence analysis re-veals that instead of creating mutual reinforcement between functions, the cur-rent system generates competing logics that judges must navigate without systematic guidance. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Persson, Mikaela LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20251
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, civilrätt, förlikning, koherens
language
Swedish
id
9190947
date added to LUP
2025-06-23 13:21:53
date last changed
2025-06-23 13:21:53
@misc{9190947,
  abstract     = {{This thesis examines tensions between civil procedure functions in Swedish law when judges exercise their discretion during settlement negotiations. The study focuses on Chapter 42, Section 17, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (RB), which obliges judges to facilitate settlements, and analyzes how these tensions manifest through the "Gothenburg model", a settlement method involving separate discussions with each party.
Using coherence theory, the thesis analyzes three main functions of civil procedure: the legal protection function, the behavior guidance function, and the conflict resolution function. The analysis reveals fundamental tensions between these functions that create coherence deficits within the legal system.
The findings demonstrate that Chapter 42, Section 17, Paragraph 1 RB represents a balancing attempt rather than a solution to functional tensions. The legislation prioritizes conflict resolution while attempting to preserve legal protection through flexible safeguards, but largely subordinates behavior guidance to party autonomy. The Gothenburg model, characterized by judges conducting separate conversations with parties, concretizes and amplifies these tensions by potentially compromising judicial neutrality and creating information management challenges.
The study concludes that the tensions reflect an inherent hierarchy among civil procedure functions rather than systematic defects. While conflict resolution takes precedence and legal protection is balanced through adaptive mechanisms, behavior guidance remains marginalized. The coherence analysis re-veals that instead of creating mutual reinforcement between functions, the cur-rent system generates competing logics that judges must navigate without systematic guidance.}},
  author       = {{Persson, Mikaela}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Domarens dilemma - motstridiga krav vid förlikningsförhandlingar enligt 42 kap. 17 § 1 st RB}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}