• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2003

As many kinds of transactions and informations move onto the Internet, methods to resolve dispute arising from this trend must also move onto the Internet. The Internet has heightened interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Some organizations are using the new technology in the field of dispute resolution, for example, by establishing web sites and offering communications through the Internet. Online ADR provides an attractive solution to an important part of the jurisdictional challenges presented by the Internet. This study reviews the types of online ADR as the dispute settlement way in electronic commerce. Especially this paper points out the task that Korea has to promote the online ADR for more effective and efficient dispute settlements.

• 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.32 no.2
• /
• pp.135-157
• /
• 2022

Religion has a very close relationship with our everyday lives. In particular, religion maintains an absolute and ultimate value system and is deeply associated with all sectors of society such as politics, economy, thought, arts, culture, and science. The original meaning of religion in Buddhism means the teachings that become fundamentals. There are numerous religions around the world, and each religion has its own object of faith, different system, and unique rites and lifestyles. Therefore, evaluating or denouncing other regions based on the doctrines or conventions of a specific religion can lead to conflicts and disputes. The Buddhist Vinaya Pitaka related to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a method regarding the operation of a community. Vinaya Pitaka contains Buddha's teachings about individual and organizational ethics and on community life and activities. It is the Buddhist dispute resolution (BDR) of the Vinayata Pitaka that contains knowledge on howto remedy disputes among the four types of disputes that can occur. Vinaya Pitaka contains the principles and systems of BDR, and it is sufficient background for succeeding in the development of harmony today. The messages of laws, ethics, and Buddhist teachings are clear in these characteristics. The systems, progress, and procedures for various rites, events, and disputes as well as for everyday life, etc. display a rational operating system through karma. In particular, when disputes occur, the cause of the dispute is resolved as much as possible through transparent fairness and being unanimous using the seven remedies for disputes. Buddhist priests pursue private autonomy of ADR through karma, repentance, acceptance, etc. to maintain and continue the integrated functions of Buddhist priest harmony.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2004

Recently in Korea, franchise system has been specially used in the distribution industry. However, it also brought up many problems caused by various issues between franchisor and franchisee. The purpose of this article is to review recent trend of the franchise transaction contracts and resolution of the disputes in Korea. And to expand to use of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system as a practical dispute settlement procedure including mediation and arbitration. Arbitration means a procedure to settle any dispute in private laws, not by the adjudication of a court, but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators, as agreed by the parties. Arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for either party to a dispute to commence arbitral proceeding and may be in the form of a separate agreement or in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract and shall be in writing.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2005.05b
• /
• pp.1491-1495
• /
• 2005

물 분쟁은 더 이상 다른 나라의 이야기가 아니다. 우리나라 역시 산업구조의 변화와 인구의 증가로 물의 수요가 증가함에 따라 많은 물 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 물 분쟁은 많은 원인과 다양한 차원의 분쟁주체들이 관계하고 있어 복잡한 네트워크구조로 나타나는 특징이 있다. 이러한 다양한 종류의 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 그 대책 또한 법률적, 기술적, 사회적으로 다양하게 접근 하여야 할 것이다. 그러나 과거 우리나라의 경우 분쟁이 발생하였을 때 그 분쟁의 최후 결정은 주로 사법기관에 의하여 처리되곤 하였다. 이러한 사법적 분쟁해결은 많은 시간과 비용을 필요로 하며 분쟁당사자 모두 만족할 수 없는 결과를 야기 할 수 있는 큰 단점을 안고 있다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 단점을 보완하고 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 대안적분쟁해결방안(ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution)을 소개하고, 적용가능성에 대하여 검토하였다. 물 분쟁의 해결을 위해 ADR을 활용한다면 시간과 비용의 절약, 원만한 분쟁해결, 사후에도 당사자들의 좋은 관계 유지 등의 이점을 기대 해볼 수 있다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2022

Since Research and Development has been expanded by government, It is very important to evaluate the outcome of Research and Development. Government have levied the penalty of researchers who misused research funding as time goes on. However, there is no protect law for the research before 2021. Government put new committee for the researchers to judge whether their action is legal or illegal based of Innovation Act 2021. Due to the various outcome index of research and development, many firms which is paticipating the research and development have been confused the outcome index. Also, It is difficult for government agencies for management to evaluate the outcome. Even if the committee is trying to solve dispute between researchers and the government agencies, it is not enough to solve it. Therefore, we need to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), because the ADR has been developved detail skills for long time.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.155-184
• /
• 2015

This paper addresses the question of what kinds of dispute resolution choices can effectively handle complex intellectual property disputes, given the rising importance of IP, the increasing frequency and complexity of IP disputes, and the lack of research on dispute resolution strategies. For this analysis, the study adopted the analytic hierarchy process approach, which covers complex, multi-criteria decision problems, to quantify the expert's judgments on IP dispute resolution choice. Its results show that the effectiveness of resolution methods differs, depending on the type of IP dispute classified into seven issues, which are (i) requirement for validity of IP right, (ii) range and duration of IP right, (iii) transfer of IP right, (iv) licensing, (v) use of IP right, (vi) declaration of IP infringement, and (vii) estimation of damage. The disputes over IPR ownership and IP infringement remain challenging issues in due to strong requirement of the cross-border enforcement. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially arbitration, is determined to be a more effective method to deal with international IP disputes, but various advanced types of ADR techniques should be further developed to deal with the increasing complexity of IP disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.

• 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.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.