• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2010

ADR is alternative dispute resolution that includes mediation, adjudication, arbitration, conciliation and ombudsman schemes. ADR may be an alternative to going to court or to a tribunal. The main types of ADR are conciliation, arbitration or mediation and ADR is divided into national leading ADR and private lading ADR and national leading ADR includes court-annexed ADR and administrative ADR. Court-annexed ADR has become a well established feature of the judicial systems on a global basis. The bulk of court-annexed ADR in Glove is by way of mediation. Thus each nation takes part in ADR by court involvement and Enactment of ADR-related Laws. And the involvement of nations have both the regulative character and promotive character in ADR. In addition to the national leading ADR, the private leading ADR also must be activated as United Kingdom. Thus this paper deals with national leading ADR and private leading ADR and the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of ADR by studying the promotion and limited the involvement of nation in ADR and private leading ADR in United Kingdom.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2012

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act in Japan was proclaimed on December 1, 2004, and five years have passed since the act took effect on April 1, 2007. The ADR Act enables qualified dispute resolution businesses to be certified as ADR business holders through the government's accreditation system, contributing greatly to the advancement of a private ADR. As of June 2012, the number of ADR institutes certified by the government had increased to 112. Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of Japan's ADR Act provides as follows: "The government should review the progress of the Act five years after enforcement, and take measures, if recognized as necessary, based on the results." Any problems revealed in the process of implementing the act are expected to be revised after five years of enforcement. To this end, the academic circle established an association called the Arbitration ADR Act Society in 2004, considering issues of the ADR Act and measures to improve the legislation, making policy suggestions, and working to improve management of the act, through seminars, forums, and a journal. The Japanese ADR Association, composed of ADR institutions as members, put forward a proposal entitled "Toward the Revision of the ADR Act" to the Ministry of Justice on April 2, 2012. This paper intends to identify the current state of the accreditation system, one of the most important systems under the ADR Act in Japan, in consideration of ADR Act revision. In particular, the examination includes measures to improve the accreditation system as well as data analysis of the application of accreditation, the current state of accredited institutions, and the ADR performance of accredited ADR businesses. In Korea, an ADR act has not been legislated yet, although the issue is being actively considered. This paper will be a meaningful reference for the Korean government in developing an accreditation system for inclusion in its ADR act in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.55-87
• /
• 2011

This paper is to illustrate a variety of court-annexed ADR programs and vindicate its implications of court-annexed ADR in United States. It has been almost three decades since Frank Sender articulated his vision of the multi-door courthouse. The court-annexed ADR originated from the concept of multi-door court house. Professor Sander argued that the court must transform from the court that provides litigation, only one type of dispute resolution, to the multi-door courthouse which provides a variety of dispute resolution methods including a number of ADR programs. The types of court-annexed ADR on which this paper focus are court-annexed mediation, court-annexed arbitration, mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, rent-a-judge, and med-arb in United States. The findings of this paper is as follows. First, the ADR movement is the irreversible and dominant phenomenon in the US court. The motivation of incorporating ADR into court is to reduce the cost of court to handle the civil disputes and to eliminate the delay of litigation process in the court. At the same time, a couple of studies of ADR revealed that the ADR program satisfied users of ADR. Second, the landscape of ADR has not been fixed. In 1970's, the court-annexed arbitration has been popular. In 1980's, the diverse kinds of ADR programs were introduced into the federal court as well as state courts, such as mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, and court-annexed mediation. But in 2000s, the court-annexed mediation has been the dominant type of ADR in United States. Third, the each type of ADR program has its own place for the dispute resolution. Since Korean society enters into the stage in which diverse kind of disputes occur in the areas of environment, construction, medicare, etc, it is desirable to take into consideration of the introduction of ADR to dispute resolution in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 2008

E-Commerce constitutes an important part of all commercial activities. Online Alternative Dispute Resolution(Online ADR) or Online Dispute Resolution(ODR) is a new method of dispute, resolution which, is provided online. Most Online ADR services are alternatives to litigation. In this respect, they are the online transposition of the methods developed in the ADR movement such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration. But there are also online courts which are really normal courts in which the contesting parties communicate essentially online. This paper deals with the current operation of Online ADR and the ways to, activate it. They include (1) die establishment of legal stability regarding Online ADR, (2) the enhancement of system security in providing Online ADR services, (3) the introduction of Online ADR service platform for providing the various services through single window on a national, or global basis, and (4) the introduction of Online ADR online monitoring system for systematic dispute resolution services.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.343-365
• /
• 2003

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. In an effort to stay competitive in a global marketplace, the Korean companies need to become more aware of alternatives to costly and time-consuming litigation. Korean companies, therefore, should be more concerned with ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system and should utilize ADR to settle their disputes effectively and efficiently. ADR encompasses all process of dispute resolution as a substitute for the traditional litigation. Generally, three kinds of ADR are available in Korea: Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This article investigates reasons why ADR isn't used well in Korea and suggests ways how ADR can work best in international trade disputes. To expand ADR system in international trade disputes, it is very important for both the company and the scholar to recognize the concept and usefulness of ADR system. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board also must help both Korean companies and scholars recognize the mechanism of dispute resolution and utilize ADR system in international trade disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2005

The meaning of Online ADR lies in the prompt and economical resolution of disputes by applying the information/communication element (Internet) to existing ADR. However, if the promptness and economical efficiency are overemphasized, the fairness and appropriateness of dispute resolution may be compromised and consequently Online ADR will be belittled and criticized as second-class trials. In addition, as communication is mostly made using texts in Online ADR it is difficult to investigate cases and to create atmosphere and induce dynamic feelings, which are possible in the process of dispute resolution through face-to-face contact. Despite such difficulties, Online ADR is expanding its area not only in online but also in offline due to its advantages such as promptness, low expenses and improved resolution methods, and is expected to develop rapidly as the electronic government decided to adopt it in the future. Accordingly, the following points must be focused on for the continuous First, in the legal and institutional aspects for the development of Online ADR, it is necessary to establish a framework law on ADR. A framework law on ADR comprehending existing mediation and arbitration should be established and it must include contents of Online ADR, which utilizes electronic communication means. However, it is too early to establish a separate law for Online ADR because Online ADR must develop based on the theoretical system of ADR. Second, although Online ADR is expanding rapidly, it may take time to be settled as a tool of dispute resolution. As discussed earlier, additionally, if the amount of money in dispute is large or the dispute is complicated, Online ADR may have a negative effect on the resolution of the dispute. Thus, it is necessary to apply Online ADR to trifle cases or domestic cases in the early stage, accumulating experiences and correcting errors. Moreover, in order to settle numerous disputes effectively, Online ADR cases should be analyzed systematically and cases should be classified by type so that similar disputes may be settled automatically. What is more, these requirements should reflected in developing Online ADR system. Third, the application of Online ADR is being expanded to consumer disputes, domain name disputes, commercial disputes, legal disputes, etc., millions of cases are settled through Online ADR, and 115 Online ADR sites are in operation throughout the world. Thus Online ADR requires not temporary but continuous attention, and mediators and arbitrators participating in Online ADR should be more intensively educated on negotiation and information technologies. In particular, government-led research projects should be promoted to establish Online ADR model and these projects should be supported by comprehensive researches on mediation, arbitration and Online ADR. Fourth, what is most important in the continuous development and expansion of Online ADR is to secure confidence in Online ADR and advertise Online ADR to users. For this, incentives and rewards should be given to specialists such as lawyers when they participate in Online ADR as mediators and arbitrators in order to improve their expertise. What is more, from the early stage, the government and public institutions should have initiative in promoting Online ADR so that parties involved in disputes recognize the substantial contribution of Online ADR to dispute resolution. Lastly, dispute resolution through Online ADR is performed by organizations such as Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce and Korea Consumer Protection Board and partially by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Online ADR is expected to expand its area to commercial disputes in offline in the future. In response to this, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, which is an organization for commercial dispute resolution, needs to be restructured.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.107-131
• /
• 2013

Online-ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) has been receiving attention from the international community as a means of alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes in both small and mass international e-commerce. The EU Parliament and the Council proposed the Online Dispute Resolution Regulation for Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ODR Regulation") and the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution of Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ADR Directive") as a legislative package, now scheduled to be adopted. Those efforts strengthen consumer protection by enhancing ODR in international e-commerce and improving of the functions of the e-commerce market. The EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package will operate in conjunction with the ODR platform as a single point across Europe, abandoning the ADR system of each member. Consumers and traders who need dispute resolution apply on the EU ODR platform linked website, and the applications are distributed to individual ADR institutions in accordance with the Rules and Procedure of ADR institutions in the respective country. Although there has been partial progress in Korea for ODR programs such as the establishment of the Online Administrative Trial and the procedures of individual ADR agencies operating through the website, existing norms do not fully support the system. At this point, we see many implications of the EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package on the direction chosen for domestic ADR and ODR policy and legislation. This study introduces the main features and content of the EU Consumer ADR Directive (draft) and ODR Regulation provisions, and describes the direction of domestic policy and legislation regarding Online-ADR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.67-85
• /
• 2010

On-line ADR is to use means of settling disputes online to settle disputes happened on-line or off-line. It gave important opportunity for engaging in a commercial transaction to small group or individual. If it uses judiciary proceeding, it will cost too much, complicate and take considerable time. So, because of these reasons, OECD even encourage on-line ADR as a mean for relieving consumer's damage actively on e-commerce. Korea is also trying to introduce on-line ADR partially or completely in Korea Consumer Agency, The National IT Industry Promotion Agency, The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. However, Korea's on-line ADR is more insufficient than advanced country's. Nevertheless, because on-line needs to introduce, this study suggests the problem and plan centering the type and the present condition of on-line ADR.