❶ 除了法律訴訟，還有哪些方式可以解決糾紛
協商
合同當事人在友好的基礎上，通過相互協商解決糾紛，這是最佳的方式。
調解
合同當事人內如果不能協商容一致，可以要求有關機構調解如，一方或雙方是國有企業的，可以要求上級機關進行調解。上級機關應在平等的基礎上分清是非進行調解，而不能進行行政干預。當事人還可以要求合同管理機關、仲裁機構、法庭等進行調解。
仲裁
合同當事入協商不成，不願調解的，可根據合同中規定的仲裁條款或雙方在糾紛發生後達成的仲裁協議向仲裁機構申請仲裁。
訴訟
如果合同中沒有訂立仲裁條款，事後也沒有達成仲裁協議，合同當事人可以將合同糾紛起訴到法院，尋求司法解決。+除了上述一般特點之外，有些合同還具有其自願的特點，如涉外合同糾紛，解決時可能會援引外國法律、而不是中國相關的合同方面的法律。
❷ 處理糾紛的方法有哪些
在我國，解決民事糾紛的方式有下列四種：(一)和解 (二)調解(三)仲裁(四)訴訟。
❸ 解決糾紛的方式有哪些
1、協商協商和第三人進行調解，這兩種方式是不用選擇的，有了問題當然會協商，但是協商未必有結果。有些合同中約定「發生爭議先協商解決，協商不成任何一方可到法院起訴」，一般只是一種習慣的說法，協商不是一個強制的前置程序，有時會在訴訟中碰到被告一方提出這樣的反駁理由「合同約定了協商不成才起訴，你還沒跟我好好協商，你現在不能起訴！」這種說法，其實沒什麼意義。 2、第三方調解 所謂的第三方調解，可以是雙方選擇的任何願意介入的第三方，比如雙方共同朋友、雙方委託的律師、也可以是2011年生效的《中華人民共和國人民調解法》中所說的「人民調解委員會」。不過，不管是哪種，以雙方自願為前提。這個自願，一是選擇這種方式必須雙方自願，二是能否達成調解一致及達成何種結果也必須雙方自願。 如果達不成一致，就只以具有強制解決權利的仲裁或法院來解決雙方的爭議了。 在司法實踐中我們通常所說的「解決爭議的方法」主要是指發生爭議後，雙方是否選擇仲裁解決，如果不選擇仲裁解決，那按法定的就是訴訟解決了。對訴訟解決，雙方是否選擇訴訟解決的法院管轄地，也是一個問題。 3、仲裁選擇了仲裁，就排除了訴訟解決的方式，商事仲裁是一局終裁，裁決作出即生效。但是，要注意的是一定要有明確有效的約定仲裁條款，實踐中很多仲裁條款由於不規范而無效。 在合同糾紛中雙方若要通過仲裁的方式解決糾紛，必須有明確的約定仲裁協議或條款。一般是在雙方事先簽訂的合同中解決爭議的方式中明確選擇仲裁的方式，且約定明確的仲裁機構。很多約定仲裁條款無效，往往是因為仲裁機構約定不明，或者既約定仲裁解決又同時約定訴訟解決。 4、訴訟如果未約定仲裁解決或約定的仲裁條款無效，那就只能通過訴訟解決了，這就涉及一個訴訟管轄的問題。 雙方可以在合同中約定訴訟的管轄法院，但不是隨意約定。當事約定管轄時，在不違反法院級別管轄和專屬管轄的情況下可以在書面合同中協議選擇被告住所地、合同履行地、合同簽訂地、原告住所地、標的物所在地人民法院管轄。
❹ 商事仲裁 民事訴訟 替代糾紛解決途徑各自的特點 優勢
不知你說的替代糾紛時什麼意思？
關於仲裁與民事訴訟。仲裁的前提是有內仲裁協議或者條容款，並且需要符合仲裁法的規定。
仲裁是一裁終局，當然，你如果不服，在符合一定條件的情況下，還可以去中院申請撤銷。
而民事訴訟的整個過程會長些，一審不服，還有二審，二審以後，也許還會發回重審，然後還可以上訴，另外還有再審。
通常來講，仲裁的受理費要高些，而但就一次程序的民事訴訟，費用要低不少。仲裁是不公開審理的，而民事訴訟，除了部分情況外，一般是公開審理。
結論：一般來講，民事訴訟，可以給你周旋的餘地，萬一結果不利，救濟手段多一些。並且，對方不履行的話，法院執行起來也容易些，畢竟是自己法院審理的。在你沒有特別要求的情況下，通常選擇民事訴訟更好。
❺ 替代性糾紛解決機制和民事訴訟的區別
我國現行的民事糾紛解決機制概括起來主要有四種:和解,調解,仲裁和訴訟。前三種可概括為非訴訟糾紛解決機制,國外則稱其為替代性糾紛解決機制（ADR），英文是Alternative Dispute Resolution，即通過多種訴訟外的方式，替代訴訟方式解決糾紛，又稱為多元化糾紛解決機制，或稱為非訴訟糾紛解決機制、法院外糾紛解決機制。
從二者的特徵你可歸納出至少兩點區別：強制性和規范性上的區別。
替代性糾紛解決機制主要特徵包括：（1）糾紛當事人具有高度的自主性，當事人意思自治在其中佔有重要地位。（2）具有較大的靈活性，當事人可視爭議的具體情況來選擇合適的解決方案和程序。（3）解決糾紛快捷且費用低廉。（4）所達成的協議、裁斷(仲裁裁決除外)一般不具有法律約束力，但由於協議完全是在雙方當事人友好協商、互諒互讓的基礎上達成的，故一般容易得到雙方當事人的承認和自覺執行。（5）以非對抗和非公開的方式解決糾紛。這樣更有利於維護雙方當事人之間長久存在的經貿交往和人際關系，並有助於保守當事人的個人隱私和商業技術秘密。替代性糾紛解決機制是一種開放的、發展的體系，對新穎的民事糾紛的處理具有較強的適應性。
民事訴訟具有兩個特點：①國家強制性，即法院憑借國家審判權強制性確定糾紛主體雙方之間的民事權利義務關系，並以國家強制執行權迫使義務主體履行生效的裁判；②嚴格的規范性，即民事訴訟必須嚴格按照法定程序進行。
❻ 什麼是替代性爭議解決機制
就是所抄謂的ADR（Alternative Dispute Resolution）意為「解決爭議的替代方式」，或者翻譯為「非訴訟糾紛解決程序」，傳統上的ADR通常是指除訴訟與仲裁以外的各種解決爭議的方法的總稱，如協商、談判、斡旋、調解、等方式。換言之，ADR所代替的是除了訴訟以外的各種解決爭議方法的總稱。
❼ 有哪位好心人幫我找一篇替代性糾紛解決機製程序（ADR）的外文文獻
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (also known as External Dispute Resolution in some countries, such as Australia[1]) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. Despite historic resistance to ADR by both parties and their advocates, ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years. In fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties' cases to be tried. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the indivial or indivials who will decide their dispute.[citation needed]
ADR is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well, but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of mediation. See conciliation for further details.) ADR can be used alongside existing legal systems such as Sharia Courts within Common Law jurisdictions such as the UK.[2]
ADR traditions vary somewhat by country and culture. There are significant common elements which justify a main topic, and each country or region's difference should be delegated to sub-pages.
ADR or Alternative Dispute Resolution is of two historic types. First, methods for resolving disputes outside of the official judicial mechanisms. Second, informal methods attached to or pendant to official judicial mechanisms. There are in addition free-standing and or independent methods, such as mediation programs and ombuds offices within organizations. The methods are similar, whether or not they are pendant, and generally use similar tool or skill sets, which are basically sub-sets of the skills of negotiation.
ADR includes informal tribunals, informal mediative processes, formal tribunals and formal mediative processes. The classic formal tribunal forms of ADR are arbitration (both binding and advisory or non-binding) and private judges (either sitting alone, on panels or over summary jury trials). The classic formal mediative process is referral for mediation before a court appointed mediator or mediation panel. Structured transformative mediation as used by the U.S. Postal Service is a formal process. Classic informal methods include social processes, referrals to non-formal authorities (such as a respected member of a trade or social group) and intercession. The major differences between formal and informal processes are (a) pendency to a court procere and (b) the possession or lack of a formal structure for the application of the procere.
For example, freeform negotiation is merely the use of the tools without any process. Negotiation within a labor arbitration setting is the use of the tools within a highly formalized and controlled setting.
Calling upon an organizational ombudsman's office is never a formal procere. (Calling upon an organizational ombudsman is always voluntary; by the International Ombudsman Association Standards of practice, no one can be compelled to use an ombuds office.)
Informal referral to a co-worker known to help people work out issues is an informal procere. Co-worker interventions are usually informal.
Conceptualizing ADR in this way makes it easy to avoid confusing tools and methods (does negotiation once a law suit is filed cease to be ADR? If it is a tool, then the question is the wrong question) (is mediation ADR unless a court orders it? If you look at court orders and similar things as formalism, then the answer is clear: court annexed mediation is merely a formal ADR process).
Dividing lines in ADR processes are often provider driven rather than consumer driven. Ecated consumers will often choose to use many different options depending on the needs and circumstances that they face.
Finally, it is important to realize that conflict resolution is one major goal of all the ADR processes. If a process leads to resolution, it is a dispute resolution process.
[taken with permission from a presentation by Stephen R. Marsh of http://adrr.com/]
The salient features of each type are as follows:
In negotiation, participation is voluntary and there is no third party who facilitates the resolution process or imposes a resolution. (NB – a third party like a chaplain or organizational ombudsperson or social worker or a skilled friend may be coaching one or both of the parties behind the scene, a process called "Helping People Help Themselves" – see Helping People Help Themselves, in Negotiation Journal July 1990, pp. 239–248, which includes a section on helping someone draft a letter to someone who is perceived to have wronged them.)
In mediation, there is a third party, a mediator, who facilitates the resolution process (and may even suggest a resolution, typically known as a "mediator's proposal"), but does not impose a resolution on the parties. In some countries (for example, the United Kingdom), ADR is synonymous with what is generally referred to as mediation in other countries.
In collaborative law or collaborative divorce, each party has an attorney who facilitates the resolution process within specifically contracted terms. The parties reach agreement with support of the attorneys (who are trained in the process) and mutually-agreed experts. No one imposes a resolution on the parties. However, the process is a formalized process that is part of the litigation and court system. Rather than being an Alternative Resolution methodology it is a litigation variant that happens to rely on ADR like attitudes and processes.
In arbitration, participation is typically voluntary, and there is a third party who, as a private judge, imposes a resolution. Arbitrations often occur because parties to contracts agree that any future dispute concerning the agreement will be resolved by arbitration. This is known as a 'Scott Avery Clause'. In recent years, the enforceability of arbitration clauses, particularly in the context of consumer agreements (e.g., credit card agreements), has drawn scrutiny from courts. Although parties may appeal arbitration outcomes to courts, such appeals face an exacting standard of review.
Beyond the basic types of alternative dispute resolutions there are other different forms of ADR:
Case evaluation: a non-binding process in which parties present the facts and the issues to a neutral case evaluator who advises the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and assesses how the dispute is likely to be decided by a jury or other adjudicator.
Early neutral evaluation: a process that takes place soon after a case has been filed in court. The case is referred to an expert who is asked to provide a balanced and neutral evaluation of the dispute. The evaluation of the expert can assist the parties in assessing their case and may influence them towards a settlement.
Family group conference: a meeting between members of a family and members of their extended related group. At this meeting (or often a series of meetings) the family becomes involved in learning skills for interaction and in making a plan to stop the abuse or other ill-treatment between its members.
Neutral fact-finding: a process where a neutral third party, selected either by the disputing parties or by the court, investigates an issue and reports or testifies in court. The neutral fact-finding process is particularly useful for resolving complex scientific and factual disputes.
Ombuds: third party selected by an institution – for example a university, hospital, corporation or government agency – to deal with complaints by employees, clients or constituents. The Standards of Practice for Organizational Ombuds may be found at http://www.ombudsassociation.org/standards/.
An organizational ombudsman works within the institution to look into complaints independently and impartially.[3]
"Alternative" dispute resolution is usually considered to be alternative to litigation. It also can be used as a colloquialism for allowing a dispute to drop or as an alternative to violence.
In recent years there has been more discussion about taking a systems approach in order to offer different kinds of options to people who are in conflict, and to foster "appropriate" dispute resolution. (See Lynch, J. "ADR and Beyond: A Systems Approach to Conflict Management", Negotiation Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, July 2001, Volume, p. 213.)
That is, some cases and some complaints in fact ought to go to formal grievance or to court or to the police or to a compliance officer or to a government IG. Other conflicts could be settled by the parties if they had enough support and coaching, and yet other cases need mediation or arbitration. Thus "alternative" dispute resolution usually means a method that is not the courts. "Appropriate" dispute resolution considers all the possible responsible options for conflict resolution that are relevant for a given issue.[4]
Arbitration and mediation are the best known and most commonly used forms of ADR within the UK. However in recent years adjudication is rapidly gaining attention as a quick, fair and cheap was to settle disputes. [5]
ADR can increasingly be concted online, which is known as online dispute resolution (ODR, which is mostly a buzzword and an attempt to create a distinctive proct). It should be noted, however, that ODR services can be provided by government entities, and as such may form part of the litigation process. Moreover, they can be provided on a global scale, where no effective domestic remedies are available to disputing parties, as in the case of the UDRP and domain name disputes. In this respect, ODR might not satisfy the "alternative" element of ADR.
❽ 解決民事糾紛的方式有哪些
1、協商解決。
2、調解解決。
3、訴訟解決。
4、仲裁解決。
❾ 非訴訟解決糾紛的途徑主要有哪些
解決民事糾紛的就訴訟、調解、仲裁。調解有人民調解，行政部門的調解，還有在法院主持下的調解。訴訟具有權威性，但調解方式效率高。