New legislative accents in the mediation procedure and legal principles of alternative dispute resolution

The article analyzes the latest versions of federal laws that made changes to the mediation procedure — allowed judges to resign to perform the procedure of professional mediation; provided an opportunity to notarize a mediation agreement, giving force to an enforcement document; the procedure of «judicial reconciliation» appeared. It is proved that mediation in its essence is not the «activity» of professional intermediaries, mediators, but a «procedure», namely, a structured process that is an alternative dispute resolution technology. The legal principles of the mediation process are disclosed: voluntariness, confidentiality, neutrality, passionlessness and independence of the mediator, independent decision-making by the parties, equality of the parties.

Peran Arbitrase di Bank Syariah dalam penyelesaian Sengketa

<p>The Indonesian muamalah arbitration board was officially established on October 21 1993. Based on the decision letter of the Indonesian Ulama Council no. Kep/09/MUI/XXI/2003 dated December 24, 2003, in the name BAMUI was changed to the National Sharia arbitration body (BASYARNAS). The application of arbitration as a dispute resolution in Islamic banks through the national Sharia arbitration board is a research called normative juridical. Every sharia bank activity must comply with the fatwa of the National Sharia Council of the Indonesian Ulema Council, as well as the resolution of disputes in sharia banks. The National Sharia Arbitration Board has procedural regulations in accordance with the provisions of law number 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.<em> </em></p>

ARBITRATION JUDICIARY – NEW QUALITY OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Arbitration judiciary, often referred to as arbitration, is commonly presented in the literature as one of the alternative methods of dispute resolution. The objections to the irregularities of the judicial state system and legitimate expectations in terms of reducing the time and costs of the proceedings guarantee the parties real access to court and protection of their rights by drawing up an arbitration clause. As part of the mutual relations of arbitration with respect to alternative dispute resolution methods, it should be emphasized that arbitration is a real alternative to the state justice administered by the common courts. It is also worth pointing to the possibilities and the need for disputes resolution by arbitration constituting as an important addition to the course of justice made by courts. The consistent intention to resolve the conflict reflected in the arbitration agreement and the exceptional opportunities for the parties to participate in the arbitration proceedings constitute a new content of the culture and legal awareness of citizens and the creation of modern mutual relations between the parties of broadly understood civil law relations. An arbitration clause, the implementation of arbitration proceedings and the resolution of a dispute within the framework of arbitration may and should therefore constitute a new quality in the administration of justice.

Alternative ways of resolving legal disputes and their application in Ukraine

Resolving legal conflicts is one of the main tasks of any state. This function is in most cases entrusted to the judiciary, but as experience shows, the court alone cannot ensure the effective functioning of the legal dispute resolution system. For every democratic state, the availability of an alternative is important, and the subject of law must be able to choose the ways of resolving legal disputes. Today in the world there are such alternative ways of resolving disputes as: arbitration, mediation, consultation, negotiations, intersession, conciliation procedure and others. The purpose of the article is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of alternative dispute resolution methods. The article analyzes the literature on this topic, and also presents the features of alternative ways of dispute resolution, which allows us to identify their advantages and disadvantages as a legal procedure. The existence in most countries of the world of alternative dispute resolution is to some extent positive for the parties to the conflict, because dispute resolution through arbitration, mediation, negotiation, consultation and other alternative dispute resolution allows to resolve it without state intervention and they can be solved much faster. Alternative dispute resolution can to some extent be a source of savings money for the state, as they exist independently and do not require funds to provide them from the state, while in Ukraine the system of commercial courts annually requires a fairly large cost of maintaining such courts. Resolving disputes through alternative methods also speeds up their resolution, but in some cases the process itself can be more expensive

Online Courts: Bridging the Gap Between Access and Justice

This article analyses the introduction of online court proceedings through the prism of access to justice. It distinguishes between the two major recent developments in terms of justice and court accessibility – ie the institutionalisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the expansion of online dispute resolution within public courts. Whilst both movements appear to be driven by similar theoretical forces, the practical adoption of fully online judicial proceedings constitutes a step towards a different direction, opening up new opportunities for attenuating the apparently intrinsic efficiency-fairness trade-off. Due to the unique features of digital technology, the emergence of state-provided online courts and tribunals for the resolution of minor civil disputes could significantly improve the efficiency of formal adversarial litigation processes, without the risk of sacrificing proper procedural protections. Overall, this article advocates that the balanced combination offered by online court systems, albeit not a panacea, may be translated into a potential enhancement of both ‘access’ and ‘justice’.

Analisis Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah Secara Non Litigasi

The aims and objectives of the research are to find out the practice of resolving sharia economic disputes in a non-litigation manner and the application of sharia economic dispute auctions. In order to achieve the aims and objectives, this research uses a normative juridical research method with an approach that refers to the Qur'an, Al-Hadith, ijtihad, legal theory, legal principles and legislation. Sources of data are obtained from the Qur'an, Al-Hadith, books, laws and regulations, court decisions, and so on as long as they are interrelated. The practice of resolving sharia economic disputes in a non-litigation manner can be pursued by arbitration, namely through the Sharia Arbitration Board (“Basyarnas-MUI”) and by alternative dispute resolution methods, namely through Consultation, Negotiation, Mediation or Expert Assessment. This is related to arbitration through the Basyarnas-MUI for the procedures and procedures that have been regulated. Meanwhile, alternative dispute resolution by means of Consultation, Negotiation, Mediation or Expert Assessment has not been sufficiently regulated. Despite this, there is already a National Committee for Islamic Economics and Finance (KNEKS) whose function is to formulate and provide recommendations for solving problems in the Islamic economy and finance sector. In addition to that, there are also arbitration institutions and other alternative dispute resolution, but these institutions have not specifically regulated the non-litigation settlement of sharia economic disputes. The application of sharia economic dispute auctions can be carried out on material guarantees by means of parate execution, executive titles or underhand sales. However, against the auction mechanism, the debtor can still take legal action, namely the cancellation of the auction or resistance / objection to the auction. This of course, apart from being less effective, it does not provide as intended the purpose of the law and legal protection for interested parties.

Application of digital technologies in litigation and dispute resolution

By now (we mean 2020) digitalization has completely replaced the more general modernization and innovation from both the political vocabulary and the sci-entific agenda. It is difficult to say how long this trend will continue and what kind of socio-technological phenomenon will replace it. It can be cyberization, within which a person will begin to bring himself into line with the canons of the sci-fi cyberpunks and combine biological with technological (and digital at the same time) in his body, or vice versa, some kind of reactionary naturalization. Anyway, now the widespread adoption of digital technology is an indisputable and obvious fact. And this process applies to all spheres of societys life, without bypassing legal proceedings and out-of-court settlement of disputes (or in other words - alternative dispute resolution), which can be significantly improved using digital technologies. This article analyses the practice and legislative regulation of the use of digital technologies in various forms of legal proceedings and such types of out-of-court dispute resolution as arbitration and mediation. Comparative legal method allowed to compare Russian and foreign legislations as well as approaches to determining the permissible limits of the use of digital technologies, including their intellectual variety. Individual proposals have been formulated to improve Russian legislation.

ADR and the rule of law under a modern justice system

<p>Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been used around the world as a means to resolve conflict for hundreds of years, and has existed in its more modern form for more than four decades. Despite this long history and widespread use, ADR is still challenged as an illegitimate part of the justice system. This challenge has not gone unheeded and has been met with a vigorous defence. Much of the ensuing debate centres on the comparison between this ‘alternative’ form of justice and what is often called the more traditional form, adjudication. This paper addresses the longstanding claim made as part of this debate that ADR undermines the rule of law. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether ADR and the rule of law can be reconciled. It does this by firstly laying out and analysing the arguments made for and against ADR in this regard. Following this analysis, it proposes that ADR and the rule of law can be reconciled through the symbiotic relationship that exists between ADR and adjudication within the modern justice system. This theory is then evidenced through a case study by way of an examination of New Zealand’s restorative justice practice in the adult criminal justice system. The paper finds that ADR contributes necessary functions to the modern justice system, including the opportunity for broader justice through the wide and encompassing resolution of disputes that it can provide, and is clearly established as an essential component of the modern justice system. It concludes that ADR does not undermine the rule of law and these two can be reconciled.</p>

ADR and the rule of law under a modern justice system

<p>Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been used around the world as a means to resolve conflict for hundreds of years, and has existed in its more modern form for more than four decades. Despite this long history and widespread use, ADR is still challenged as an illegitimate part of the justice system. This challenge has not gone unheeded and has been met with a vigorous defence. Much of the ensuing debate centres on the comparison between this ‘alternative’ form of justice and what is often called the more traditional form, adjudication. This paper addresses the longstanding claim made as part of this debate that ADR undermines the rule of law. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether ADR and the rule of law can be reconciled. It does this by firstly laying out and analysing the arguments made for and against ADR in this regard. Following this analysis, it proposes that ADR and the rule of law can be reconciled through the symbiotic relationship that exists between ADR and adjudication within the modern justice system. This theory is then evidenced through a case study by way of an examination of New Zealand’s restorative justice practice in the adult criminal justice system. The paper finds that ADR contributes necessary functions to the modern justice system, including the opportunity for broader justice through the wide and encompassing resolution of disputes that it can provide, and is clearly established as an essential component of the modern justice system. It concludes that ADR does not undermine the rule of law and these two can be reconciled.</p>

The Adoption of International Arbitration as the Preferred ADR Process in the Resolution of International Intellectual Property Disputes

This article, which is intended for arbitration practitioners, demonstrates that international arbitration as a subset of the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a useful toolkit for the expeditious resolution of international intellectual property law disputes. The article demonstrates how the theory and practice of international arbitration is particularly well poised to address some of the specific considerations and requirements of paramount concern to the international intellectual property lawyers and their clients. The article will explain how the inherent features of the international arbitration legal landscape combine to indicate that it should be considered as the preferred method of ADR and explain how each of these features can provide both time and cost efficiencies. The article will identify the legal reasoning behind the benefits inherent to choosing international arbitration and will also address those circumstances when international arbitration may be precluded or otherwise considered unsuitable for intellectual property matters. The article examines several distinct benefits that international arbitration uniquely offers to international intellectual property law users and highlights some areas of the field that require additional caution.