Ⅰ 经济纠纷的解决途径有哪些如何根据不同的情况选择适用
解决经济纠纷的主要途径和适用
解决经济纠纷的途径和方式主要有仲裁、民事诉讼、行政复议、行政诉讼。
1、仲裁与民事诉讼是两种不同的争议解决方式。当事人发生争议只能在仲裁或者民事诉讼两种方式中选择一种解决方式。有效的仲裁协议可排除法院的管辖权。只有在没有仲裁协议或者仲裁协议无效，或者当事人放弃仲裁协议的情况下，法院才可以行使管辖权，这在法律上称为或裁或审原则。
2、行政复议与行政诉讼方式的选择则与纠纷的性质有关。根据法律的不同规定，有的可以直接向法院起诉，也可以先申请行政复议，对行政复议决定不服时再起诉;有的则只能先申请行政复议，对行政复议决定不服才能提起行政诉讼;还有的则只能通过行政复议的方式解决，由行政机关对纠纷作出最终裁决。
Ⅱ 经济纠纷的解决途径有哪些
1.协商
合同当事来人在友好的基础源上，通过相互协商解决纠纷，这是最佳的方式。
2．调解
合同当事人如果不能协商一致，可以要求有关机构调解如，一方或双方是国有企业的，可以要求上级机关进行调解。上级机关应在平等的基础上分清是非进行调解，而不能进行行政干预。当事人还可以要求合同管理机关、仲裁机构、法庭等进行调解。
3.仲裁
合同当事入协商不成，不愿调解的，可根据合同中规定的仲裁条款或双方在纠纷发生后达成的仲裁协议向仲裁机构申请仲裁。
4．诉讼
如果合同中没有订立仲裁条款，事后也没有达成仲裁协议，合同当事人可以将合同纠纷起诉到法院，寻求司法解决。除了上述一般特点之外，有些合同还具有其自愿的特点，如涉外合同纠纷，解决时可能会援引外国法律、而不是中国相关的合同方面的法律。
Ⅲ 替代性纠纷解决机制和民事诉讼的区别
我国现行的民事纠纷解决机制概括起来主要有四种:和解,调解,仲裁和诉讼。前三种可概括为非诉讼纠纷解决机制,国外则称其为替代性纠纷解决机制（ADR），英文是Alternative Dispute Resolution，即通过多种诉讼外的方式，替代诉讼方式解决纠纷，又称为多元化纠纷解决机制，或称为非诉讼纠纷解决机制、法院外纠纷解决机制。
从二者的特征你可归纳出至少两点区别：强制性和规范性上的区别。
替代性纠纷解决机制主要特征包括：（1）纠纷当事人具有高度的自主性，当事人意思自治在其中占有重要地位。（2）具有较大的灵活性，当事人可视争议的具体情况来选择合适的解决方案和程序。（3）解决纠纷快捷且费用低廉。（4）所达成的协议、裁断(仲裁裁决除外)一般不具有法律约束力，但由于协议完全是在双方当事人友好协商、互谅互让的基础上达成的，故一般容易得到双方当事人的承认和自觉执行。（5）以非对抗和非公开的方式解决纠纷。这样更有利于维护双方当事人之间长久存在的经贸交往和人际关系，并有助于保守当事人的个人隐私和商业技术秘密。替代性纠纷解决机制是一种开放的、发展的体系，对新颖的民事纠纷的处理具有较强的适应性。
民事诉讼具有两个特点：①国家强制性，即法院凭借国家审判权强制性确定纠纷主体双方之间的民事权利义务关系，并以国家强制执行权迫使义务主体履行生效的裁判；②严格的规范性，即民事诉讼必须严格按照法定程序进行。
Ⅳ 什么是替代性纠纷解决方式
具体如下:
一、替代性纠纷解决方式概述
替代性纠纷解决方式既可以根据字面意义译为“替代性(或代替性、选择性)纠纷解决方式”,亦可根据其实质意义译为“审判外(诉讼外)纠纷解决方式”或“非诉讼纠纷解决方式”、“法院外纠纷解决方式”等。ADR概念源于美国,原来是指上世纪逐步发展起来的各种诉讼外纠纷解决方式的总称,现在一般已引申为对世界各国普遍存在着的、民事诉讼制度以外的非诉讼纠纷解决方式或机制的称谓。
由于替代性纠纷解决方式是一个总括性、综合性的概念,其内涵和外延相对均难以准确界定。目前,学界对ADR应包括哪些程序制度仍存在较大分歧,学界争论的焦点在于ADR是否包括仲裁。一种观点认为,ADR“是一组供当事人任意选择用来避免正式对抗性诉讼的办法”,是当事人之间约定的通过除诉讼以外的方法解决他们之间的争议的各种方法的总称,如仲裁、调解等方式。另一种观点则认为,ADR协议不能保证有一个终局的、对双方当事人均有拘束力的决定,除非当事人之间就解决争议达成一致,并能自动执行他们之间业已达成的关于如何解决争议协议。这种观点倾向于将仲裁排除在ADR之外。
笔者认为,仲裁是否包括在ADR之内不能一概而论。一要从形式上判断,它是国际公法领域的仲裁,还是民商事领域的仲裁,前者的裁决基本上靠国际法主体自觉执行,应该属于ADR。另外还要看是国际商事仲裁,还是国内商事仲裁,在英美国家,一般认为后者是ADR,而前者就不一定,如国际商会ADR(ICC-ADR)把仲裁排除在外,[4]而伦敦国际仲裁院(LCIA)就没有。[5](P57)二要从实质上分析看它是否与普通的诉讼程序保持合理的距离,看它是否还有足够的灵活性和较少的正式性。尽管学界对ADR争论不休,但有一点却达成了共识,那就是:ADR一般用来解决民商事法律领域的争端。
二、替代性纠纷解决方式的特点
第一,自主性。在替代性纠纷解决方式中,当事人是平等的主体,双方可自行决定争端解决事宜,从而增加了透明度,也增加了可信度,减少了执行的难度。
第二,灵活性。由于整个争议的解决都是建立在当事人平等自愿的基础之上的,因此当事人可以选择自己认为合适的程序,如对事实审查,还是对法律审查,还是一并审查,都可以由当事人自己决定。另外,在履行时,当事人不局限于法律规定的救济,还可以结合任何物质或非物质利益的转移和交换。
第三,快捷性和经济性。由于替代性纠纷解决方式不拘泥于程序的完整、周到,灵活多变,因而省时。而WTO争端解决机制中,从理论上说,如无上诉,需1年,如上诉,需1年3个月,而从实践来看,花费的时间就更长,如1995年委内瑞拉、巴西诉美国案就花了两年零七个月。[7](P88-89)替代性纠纷解决方式由于节约时间,成本也相应降低。
第四,可执行性。如WTO争端解决中采用消极协商一致的原则,把问题留到了执行阶段,即使采用交叉报复等手段,可能也于事无补。而运用替代性纠纷解决方式处理争端,目的是在满足双方基本利益的基础上寻求合法持久的方法,其中通过达成共识来调和双方的利益是最具建设性的方法。
第五,温和性。替代性纠纷解决方式一个最大的特点就是:争端解决的整个过程都是在友好、和谐、平静的气氛中进行,减少了双方的对立,有利于双方最大限度地作出让步。
三、替代性纠纷解决方式的种类
替代性纠纷解决方式主要包括:
(一)协商(Negotiation)
协商是最普通的解决纠纷的方式,它是通过直接或间接的联系方式,使利益发生冲突的当事人进行谈判,共同努力消除分歧,而不诉诸仲裁和审判。协商中的联系以寻找共同的利益基础和折衷为中心,当事人都本着解决问题的态度,积极寻求双方都认为满意的解决问题的方案。
(二)调解(Mediation)
调解是替代性纠纷解决方式中最重要的一种,在当事人之间的联系中最有影响。简言之,调解就是由一非当事人的中立方在当事人之间帮助其协商。从中立者的角色看,调解不同于司法解决程序。与法官或仲裁员不同,调解员无权将调解结果强加于当事人。调解员的唯一功能就是帮助发生纠纷者共同去解决其纠纷。调解员的角色和调解的程序,根据纠纷的性质和当事人之间的关系的不同而有所变化。调解员可以帮助找出争议的问题和各争议方的利益,帮助在当事人之间传递信息,找出达成一致的基础和不能解决纠纷的后果,找出一个共同解决问题的途径。通过了解属于保密范围的当事人的利益和地位,调解员常常能够找出当事人最初的愿望以外的选择。所有的努力都是为了加强发生争议的当事人之间的联系。调解员可以控制信息的传递,降低风险。当事人一方可以将有关信息告诉调解员而不让对方知道,调解员的出现可以加速当事人之间通过对话协商产生结果。有经验的调解员会激发当事人想方设法去解决问题。通常,当事人在其所处的地位以及法律赋予的权利以外的利益是很广泛的,而且常常是有重叠的,调解员就是善于帮助当事人发现其各自的利益以及他们共同的利益所在。调解员还可以帮助当事人选择最适合的其他各种替代性纠纷解决方式。
由于深受儒家文化传统影响,以调解为主的非诉讼争议的实践在我国有着深厚而悠久的历史基础。实践证明,调解方式在我国发挥了重要的作用。在中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会的仲裁案件中,几乎有50%的案件经过仲裁员在仲裁程序中进行过调解,而且调解的成功率达到了40%-50%。尽管这样,我国的调解制度也日益暴露出一些弱点和不足,致使调解发挥不出应有的作用。鼓励和引导诉讼外的纠纷解决方式,尤其是诉前调解,不仅有利于减少司法资源的投入和减少案件积压,在一定的程度上降低交易成本和提高纠纷的解决效率,也符合诉讼经济和鼓励当事人调解的国际潮流与趋势。
(三)小型审理(Mini-Trial)
小型审理是一种没有拘束力的、可以由民间主持也可以由法院主持的解决纠纷的程序。小额审理的形式很多,但其基本思想是相同的。在小型审理中,通常由一个法官或一个中立的顾问(NeutralAdvisor)主持一至两天的听证。这种听证是非正式的,通常没有证人,因而有关的证据规则和程序也是很宽松的。被赋予解决纠纷权利的当事人的代表———通常是高级执行官(SeniorExecutives)———要亲自听取各方律师的简短的关于案件的发言。听证后,高级执行官常常在中立的顾问的帮助下协商解决纠纷。如果协商失败,中立的顾问会为高级执行官提供一个该纠纷如果进行正式司法审判可能出现的判决,此时双方再重新进行协商达成协议。小型审理是一种权利和利益基础混合的程序,小型审理从几个方面有利于纠纷的解决:有法官等司法人员的介入,在法官的帮助分析下有利于寻求具体的解决方式;双方高层领导的直接对话避免了代理者决定权的限制,更利于纠纷的解决;非正式的听证使各方当事人对争议的问题更为明确,并直接将一方当事人的观点展示给对方;虽然其审理结果不具有约束力,但鉴于其往往具有正式司法判决的预见性,因此双方一般都愿意采用。小型审理被典型地用于解决国际商事纠纷。
(四)调解与仲裁(Med-Arb)
调解与仲裁是,首先由一中立的第三方(NeutralThirdParty)试图帮助双方形成一个纠纷解决决定,如果调解不能解决,该第三方将扮演仲裁员的角色,并对争议的问题做出裁决。当然,对于将截然不同的两种程序———调解和仲裁———由同一人主持是否合适是有争论的,许多从事纠纷解决的人反对这种调解与仲裁合并的纠纷解决方式,认为这样会破坏仲裁员思维的中立性。同时,在调解中,当事人基于对调解员信任而将其想法合盘托出,以利于调解员帮助其在调解过程中找到更符合其需要的解决问题的方案。而作为仲裁员必须是不偏不倚的,但其将受调解过程中当事人的倾诉的影响。同样,因害怕调解过程中的倾诉会对仲裁程序造成不利影响,当事人将不再在调解过程中全盘托出自己的想法,这样就产生了一定的矛盾。当然,由不同的人分别主持调解和仲裁程序将会解决这一矛盾,但无疑会影响效率。[8](P163)
(五)仲裁(Arbitration)
仲裁是由一中立的第三方,在非正式的听证程序中听取了当事人的举证和辩论后,对有关争议做出有拘束力的裁决。仲裁可以是有拘束力的,也可以是无拘束力的;可以是自愿的,也可以是强制性的;可以是当事人约定的,也可以是法律规定的或法院决定的;可以由一名仲裁员主持,也可以由三名仲裁员组成的合议庭主持。仲裁程序的特点在于,是由中立的第三方专家做出最后的裁决。仲裁不像调解那样使当事人有自决的权利;而其在“或输或赢”的特征上与审判是相同的,只不过仲裁是非正式的、更快速、更廉价、当事人可以自己选择裁判者。
四、替代性纠纷解决方式的价值分析
替代性纠纷解决方式是指在一个社会中,多种多样的纠纷解决方式以其特定的功能和特点,相互协调地存在所构成的一种互补的、满足社会主体多种需求的程序体系和动态的运作调整系统。多元化纠纷解决方式的合理性归因于社会主体对纠纷解决方式的多样性需求。纠纷解决方式的样式最终也是由社会物质生活条件和发展所决定的。当今中国,现代型纠纷和现代型诉讼正在以多发的、史无前例的特征在社会和法院大量出现;改革中的政策变化,例如土地承包权、国企下岗职工等引起的特殊类型的纠纷更是层出不穷,而由于法制尚不够健全及法官的素质等原因,司法在处理这些方面的能力也是力不从心,因此利益的多元化对纠纷解决方式的多元化的要求也是日益迫切的,并进一步促进了替代性纠纷解决方式的发展。
Ⅳ 法律英语 ADR是替代性纠纷解决方式 请勿用翻译软件翻译 懂的来
好难，，，，，
Ⅵ 有哪位好心人帮我找一篇替代性纠纷解决机制程序（ADR）的外文文献
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.
Ⅶ 什么是替代性争议解决机制
就是所抄谓的ADR（Alternative Dispute Resolution）意为“解决争议的替代方式”，或者翻译为“非诉讼纠纷解决程序”，传统上的ADR通常是指除诉讼与仲裁以外的各种解决争议的方法的总称，如协商、谈判、斡旋、调解、等方式。换言之，ADR所代替的是除了诉讼以外的各种解决争议方法的总称。
Ⅷ 商事仲裁 民事诉讼 替代纠纷解决途径各自的特点 优势
不知你说的替代纠纷时什么意思？
关于仲裁与民事诉讼。仲裁的前提是有内仲裁协议或者条容款，并且需要符合仲裁法的规定。
仲裁是一裁终局，当然，你如果不服，在符合一定条件的情况下，还可以去中院申请撤销。
而民事诉讼的整个过程会长些，一审不服，还有二审，二审以后，也许还会发回重审，然后还可以上诉，另外还有再审。
通常来讲，仲裁的受理费要高些，而但就一次程序的民事诉讼，费用要低不少。仲裁是不公开审理的，而民事诉讼，除了部分情况外，一般是公开审理。
结论：一般来讲，民事诉讼，可以给你周旋的余地，万一结果不利，救济手段多一些。并且，对方不履行的话，法院执行起来也容易些，毕竟是自己法院审理的。在你没有特别要求的情况下，通常选择民事诉讼更好。
Ⅸ 在社区纠纷调解程序中，请谈谈制定并实施解决方案的具体内容是什么
在社区纠纷调解程序中，一共有5个程序：分析纠纷事实、研判纠纷焦点、制定内解决目标、制定并容实施解决方案、进行调解评估。
在纠纷解决目标确定后，纠纷调解人可在此基础上制定纠纷解决方案并实施。纠纷解决方案一般需要包括：纠纷对象、纠纷解决目标、纠纷解决思路(危机介入、社会生态理论等相关专业的理论与原理）、纠纷解决具体方案（调解的具体方式、时间、地点、人财物分配、应急方案等）和效果评估表。纠纷解决方案需要经纠纷当事人确认同意方可实施。纠纷调解人在进行有效调解后，化解当事人的矛盾，实现了解决目标，按照相关规定，如需要制作调解书；如不需要则不必制作调解书，也可以与双方当事人当面进行友善和解，实现纠纷解决的目的。