代替性糾紛解決方式的概念

Ⅰ 民事糾紛的解決方式有哪幾種

民事糾紛解決方式主要有三類：自力救濟、社會救濟、公力救濟。自力救濟包括自決與和解。社會救濟包括調解和仲裁。公力救濟包括訴訟和行政裁決。

民事糾紛的處理機制，是指緩解和消除民事糾紛的方法和制度。根據糾紛處理的制度和方法的不同可以從以下三種形式來論述民事糾紛的處理機制。

自力救濟

自力救濟，包括自決與和解。它是指糾紛主體依靠自身力量解決糾紛，以達到維護自己權益的目的。自決是指糾紛主體一方憑借自己的力量使對方服從。和解是指雙方互相妥協和讓步。兩者共同點是，都是依靠自我的力量來解決爭議，無需第三方的參與，也不受任何規范的制約。

社會救濟

社會救濟，包括調解（訴訟外調解）和仲裁。他是只依靠社會力量處理民事糾紛的一種機制。

調解是由第三者(調解機構或調解人)出面對糾紛的雙方當事人進行調停說和，用一定的法律規范和道德規范勸導沖突雙方，促使他們在互諒互讓的基礎上達成解決糾紛的協議。調解協議不具有法律上的強制力，但具有合同意義上的效力。

仲裁是由雙方當事人選定的仲裁機構對糾紛進行審理並作出裁決。仲裁不同於調解，仲裁裁決對雙方當事人有法律上的拘束力。但是，仲裁與調解一樣，也是以雙方當事人的自願為前提條件的，只有糾紛的雙方達成仲裁協議，一致同意將糾紛交付裁決，仲裁才能夠開始。

公力救濟

公力救濟，包括訴訟和行政裁決。民事訴訟是指法院在當事人和其他訴訟參與人的參加下，以審理、判決、執行等方式解決民事糾紛的活動，以及由這些活動產生的各種訴訟關系的總和。

民事訴訟動態地表現為法院、當事人及其他訴訟參與人進行的各種訴訟活動，靜態地則表現為在訴訟活動中產生的訴訟關系。

行政裁決是指行政機關或法定授權的組織，依照法律授權，對當事人之間發生的、與行政管理活動密切相關的、與合同無關的民事糾紛進行審查，並作出裁決的具體行政行為。行政裁決的主體具有法定性。

行政機關只有獲得法律授權，才能對授權范圍內的民事糾紛案件進行審查並裁決，沒有法律授權，行政機關不能自行決定和裁決某些民事糾紛案件。

(1)代替性糾紛解決方式的概念擴展閱讀

民事糾紛是指平等主體的公民、法人或者其他組織之間以及他們相互之間財產關系和人身關系發生的糾紛。比如，財產權、人身權、知識產權受到侵害引起的糾紛，因合同的訂立履行引起的糾紛，或者因婚姻、繼承、收養等家庭關系等引起的糾紛。

發生了民事糾紛，當事人可以請求人民調解委員會、有關單位、有關行政部門進行調解，也可以依法向仲裁機構申請仲裁，或者向人民法院提起民事訴訟。

人民調解委員會是在基層人民政府和基層人民法院指導下，調解民間糾紛的組織。人民調解委員會依照法律規定，根據自願原則進行調解。當事人對調解達成的協議應當履行;不願調解、調解不成或者反悔的，可以向人民法院起訴。

有關單位、有關行政部門的調解，主要指當事人所在單位或者某些行政管理部門對民事糾紛的調解，比如當事人所在單位對離婚問題的調解，公安部門對於因交通事故產生的損害賠償所做的調解。有關單位和行政部門對民事糾紛調解不成的，當事人可以向人民法院提起訴訟。

人民調解委員會和有關單位、有關行政部門的調解不是解決民事糾紛的必經程序，民事糾紛的當事人可以不經調解而直接向人民法院提起民事訴訟。

參考資料來源：網路-民事糾紛

Ⅱ 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。

Ⅲ 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。

Ⅳ 作為解決國際貿易爭議的兩種方式，仲裁與ADR有何異同

國際商事仲裁是adr的一種機制。

adr ,即Alternative Dispute Resolution 的縮寫,這一概念源於美國,原來是指本世紀逐步發展起來的各種訴訟糾紛解決方式,現已引申為對世界各國普遍存在著的、民事訴訟制度以外的非訴訟糾紛解決程序或機制的總稱。這一概念既可以根據字面意義譯為「替代性(或代替性、選擇性) 糾紛解決方式」,亦可根據其實質意義譯為「審判外(訴訟外或判決外) 糾紛解決方式」或「非訴訟糾紛解決程序」、「法院外糾紛解決方式」等。

adr機制的主要模式
（1） 協商。協商是雙方爭議解決的最簡易方式，因為沒有第三方的參加，爭議雙方在一起協商，可以有律師做代理也可以沒有律師參與。
（2） 調解。調解是指第三者應爭議雙方當事人的請求,通過盡量協調雙方的分歧,而不是作出有約束力的決定的方式解決當事人之間爭議的方法。調解可以說是adr中最為常見和最重要的一種形式,是所有其他形式的adr的基礎。與法庭審判相比,調解花費低廉、耗時少,當事人心理壓力較小。
（3） 仲裁。與其他方式相比，仲裁更具有司法性。仲裁是由一個中立方聽取各方意見後作出一個對各方有約束力的終局裁判。這個裁判可以由法院進行強制執行。實際上幾乎所有的商務糾紛都可以提交仲裁，只要雙方訂立有仲裁協議或在合同中定有仲裁條款。
（4）小型審理。該模式是ADR機制的新發展，實質上是一種模擬訴訟的調解方式。它的最大作用就是解決那些涉及面較大，混合著法律和事實的復雜糾紛，象產品責任糾紛、反壟斷糾紛等。通常由當事人雙方各指派一名高級行政長官組成專門小組,並共同推選一名首席調解員。各方當事人所指定的行政長官一般只代表各方當事人的利益。輪流以口頭或書面方式提出自己的意見,如同法院公開審理一樣,只不過形式更簡單[5]。
（5） 律師或中立專家的聯合磋商( 早期審理評議)。這種模式是由一個獨立的第三人，可以是一名律師或技術專家，聽取爭議雙方的意見，提出自己的觀點，幫助雙方解決爭端，經常被用於當糾紛一方或者雙方想向一個有經驗的個人咨詢自己在有關案件中所處的優勢或劣勢的建議。
（6） 簡易陪審團審判。它通過民事陪審團的介入促進在司法審判中解決爭議。目前,簡易陪審團審判在美國是相當普通的實踐。在這種解決爭議的模式中,陪審團在任何官方聽證會舉行之前,聽取各方當事人的簡要陳述,並作出一個建議性的裁決。該裁決可能會構成當事人進行談判磋商的基礎,從而使當事人免於陷入冗繁費時的法院訴訟。

由此可見，國際商事仲裁是ADR的一種機制。

Ⅳ 糾紛主體可選擇Adr替代訴訟程序的根源與效果

摘要 代替性糾紛解決方式，即英文Alternative Dispute Resolution（縮寫為ADR）的意譯。這一概念既可以根據字面意義譯為「代替性（或替代性、選擇性）糾紛解決方式」，亦可根據其實質意義譯為「審判外（訴訟外）糾紛解決方式」或「非訴訟糾紛解決方式」、「法院外糾紛解決方式」等。ADR概念源於美國，原來是本世紀逐步發展起來的各種訴訟外糾紛解決方式的總稱，現在已引申為對世界各國普遍存在著的、民事訴訟制度以外的非訴訟糾紛解決方式或機制的稱謂

Ⅵ 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.

Ⅶ 法律英語 ADR是替代性糾紛解決方式 請勿用翻譯軟體翻譯 懂的來

好難，，，，，

Ⅷ 不用打官司解決糾紛的方式含義方便怎樣

不用打官司解決糾紛的方式主要有：
1、雙方協商解決；
2、找人調解解決；
3、申請仲裁。