替代性纠纷解决

1. 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.

2. 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。

3. 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。

4. 仲裁是什么意思

仲裁是指争议双方在争议发生前或争议发生后达成协议，自愿将争议交给第三者做出裁决，双方有义务执行的一种解决争议的方法。

1.调解，作为民事纠纷解决机制的一种，是指第三者依据一定的社会规范

（包括习惯、道德、法律等规范），在纠纷主体之间沟通信息，摆事实明道理，促成纠纷主体相互谅解、妥协，从而达成最终解决纠纷的合意。

具有意思自治性、非严格的规范性等特点。鉴于目 前实践，调解可分为诉讼内调解和诉讼外调解。

2.诉讼，则是指由特定的国家机关，在纠纷主体的参加下，以国家公权力解决社会纠纷的一种机制。

在现代社会，诉讼是由国家司法机关来主持进行的，由于国家公权力的行使，它具有国家强制力、严格的规范性等特征。

(4)替代性纠纷解决扩展阅读：

立什么样的仲裁制度，直接关系仲裁的生存和发展，也直接关系到能否公正，及时，有效地解决当事人之间的争议，仲裁法在总结中国仲裁的经验，借鉴国外经验的基础上，提出了三项基本制度，即协议仲裁制度，或裁或审制度，一裁终局制度。

协议仲裁

这是仲裁中当事人自愿原则的最根本体现，也是自愿原则在仲裁过程中得以实现的最基本的保证，仲裁法规定仲裁必须要有书面的仲裁协议，仲裁协议可以是合同中写明的仲裁条款，也可以是单独书写的仲裁协议书。仲裁协议的内容应当包括请求仲裁的意思表示，约定的仲裁事项，以及选定的仲裁委员会。

或裁或审

或裁或审是尊重当事人选择解决争议途径的制度。其含义是，当事人达成书面仲裁协议的，应当向仲裁机构申请仲裁，不能向法院起诉。人民法院也不受理有仲裁协议的起诉。

如果一方当事人出于自身的利益或者其它原因，没有信守仲裁协议或者有意回避仲裁而将争议起诉到法院，那么被诉方当事人可以依据仲裁协议向法院提出管辖权异议，要求法院驳回起诉，法院按照仲裁法的规定，将对具有有效仲裁协议的起诉予以驳回并让当事人将争议交付仲裁。

一裁终局

《仲裁法》第9条规定“仲裁实行一裁终局的制度，裁决作出后，当事人就同一纠纷再申请仲裁或者向人民法院起诉的，仲裁委员会不予受理。

一裁终局的基本含义在于，裁决作出后，即产生法律效力，即使当事人对裁决不服，也不能就同一案件向法院提出起诉。

所以一裁终局，不仅排除了中国沿用多年的一裁二审的可能性，同时也排除了一裁一复议和二裁终局的可能性。

5. 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，，，，，