• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.201-223
• /
• 2019

There are diverse kinds of alternative dispute resolution systems in India. In the structure of society in Ancient India, the panchayat system was the creation of the villagers themselves and was composed of persons who were generally respected and to whose decisions the villagers were accustomed to give unreserved obedience. The ruler of the province allowed the villagers to govern themselves and the villagers assumed the responsibility for the settlement of disputes among themselves. However, the panchayat system has been heavily influenced by the structure of the village at hand, which depends on the caste system in India. This study categorizes the village dispute resolution structure into four main types depending on the extent of the caste group's dominance within the village. In addition, the Indian government created Lok Adalat which combines the indigenous dispute resolution with modern law system. Today, Lok Adalat is one of the widely used dispute resolution systems in India.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

As the Internet rapidly emerges as a speedy and cost-effective way of purchasing goods from overseas websites, the number of disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases also increases. In such situations, a disgruntled consumer might be left without an effective remedy. Providing an alternative approach to redress such grievances might assist in resolving such disputes and in increasing consumer confidence in e-commerce. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) will allow consumers to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost, and simple way. It also helps to eliminate complex jurisdictional and choice-of-law problems. On the other hand, it has many problems such as having inadequate confidentiality and security, not being able to meet the "writing" requirement for arbitration of disputes, having difficulty in enforcing online arbitration agreements, having difficulties in enforcing online decisions and so on. This article investigates relationship online disputes and ODR and suggests ways that ODR can work best in resolving disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases. To expand the ODR system in online disputes, it is very important for domestic consumers to recognize the concept and usefulness of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and ODR systems. The Korean government must also help consumers recognize the ADR mechanisms of dispute resolution by public campaign advertisement of ADR systems. Further education of dispute resolution in higher educational institutions is also required as well as assisting the KCAB with funds and the establishment of ADR Law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.217-245
• /
• 2001

Like traditional commerce, disputes are bound to arise in the course of conducting an e-commerce transaction. At present of June 30, 2001, 259 cases of dispute on e-commerce have been applied for the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, types of them are 170 cases of delayed delivery of commodity, 21 cases of contract cancellation and refund, 16 cases of personal information protection, 16 cases of false and exaggerated advertisement, 14 cases of commodity defect. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute are litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). ADR encompasses mediation, arbitration, and similar private tools for resolving disputes. ADR offers many perceived advantages. Speed of resolution and low cost are often cited as the primary benefits. Therfore e-commerce disputes may be settled more effectively by litigation. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute by ADR are the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, the mediation of Consumer Dispute Mediation Commercial Arbitration Board, and the arbitration of Korean Commerical Arbitration Board. E-commerce sets up the probability that its merchants and customers will not exist in the same legal jurisdictions. The confusing application of laws and wide geographical dispersion of these parties will necessitate a faster and cheaper dispute resolution methodology. Therefore, online ADR may be effective for e-commerce dispute resolution. The examples of online ADR opetation are the cyber mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Resolution Committee, the cyber mediation of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, the cyber mediation of Click N Settle, the online ADR of BBB online, and the cyber arbitration of virtual Magistrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.67-89
• /
• 2018

An arbitration has great strength in the sense that it is a more rapid dispute resolution than a trial, and is means of dispute settlement for an achievement of the purpose which is the improvement of the rights and interests of consumers. Because the remedy of consumers' damage currently has not worked well, discussions about consumer arbitration as a universal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is needed. The core of the ADR is not only the professionality and neutrality of an arbitrator and a mediator, but also the non-impairment of the arbitration proceeding's fairness. In addition, it also has both economic feasibility and efficiency. Furthermore, providing an institutional strategy is necessary to ensure fairness in an arbitration award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.425-457
• /
• 2004

This study is to approach e-Trade issues and how to settle the dispute for e-Trade according to on-line Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. Most on-line systems operate on a limited access basis. The increasing use of the internet to do business brings to light at least important concerns to persons who engage in commerce on-line, or e-Trade. There is some concern about the limits of current internet technology to guarantee the security of e-Trade. The new technology has transformed society and is defining new years of doing business. This revolution in technology has even changed the nature of many of the goods and services that are the subjects of e-Trade. There is also concern about the limits of the legal framework to guarantee the enforcement of e-Trade. A significant issue is how the law should be adapted to reflect business practices regarding such cyberspace agreements as Web site click-on agreements, e-data interchange, and on-line sales. The principal benefits of on-line ADR should typically be faster and less expensive than traditional conciliation arbitration. The on-line ADR system has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of ADR, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for the settle of dispute. Therefore, on-line ADR could be used as an adjunct resolution process in large class actions where each single claim is small, but varies somewhat, thus requiring some individual fact determination.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.159-179
• /
• 2014

Currently disputes related to sports arise in various ways. Moreover, as the awareness of the rights of the people in the field of sports grows the chances of disputes occurring increases. Therefore, the number of sports disputes which will be dealt with by courts will increase. On the other hand, there are demands for fast and efficient legal resolutions for diverse sports disputes. However, as a dispute resolution system, the current domestic arbitration for sports disputes exposed several problems: the lack of professional arbitrators for sports disputes, procedural elements of delay, and the lack of promotion of the arbitration system. This study will first analyze the system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes. Then this study will review of the system for the resolution of international sports disputes and propose the establishment of an arbitration system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes.

• 한국건설관리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건설관리학회 2001년도 학술대회지
• /
• pp.329-332
• /
• 2001

우리나라 건설분쟁에 대한 해결은 재판을 통한 소송을 비롯하여 재판 외 분쟁해결제도인 협상, 중재, 조정을 통해 해결하고 있다. 하지만 건설 분쟁 제기 수가 발주자와 시공자의 인식 변화와 시장 개방, 기업 여건 악화 등으로 계속해서 증가하는 추세에 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 그 동안의 건설 분쟁에 대한 해결방안이 사후적인 대책에 머물러 있음을 감안하여 사전에 예방하는 방법으로 파트너링 도입안을 제시해 보고자 한다. 미국에서 시작된 파트너링은 현재 분쟁감소와 공기절감, 참여자 상호교류의 증진 등의 효과를 가져왔다. 이에 본 연구에서는 분쟁 감소 방안으로 파트너링에 대한 모델안을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.