代替性糾紛解決方式的特徵探究

1. 淺析幾種主要民事糾紛處理方式對比分析研究

論文摘要 面對當今社會民事糾紛的多樣性、復雜性，由於現有糾紛處理方式優缺點比較突出，無法單獨處理各類糾紛，本文希望通過對幾種典型民事糾紛處理方式進行優缺點對比分析，找出各糾紛處理方式在處理糾紛過程中的問題所在，並基於此分析，建議建立符合國情實際的多元化民事糾紛解決機制，實現訴訟內外各種糾紛解決方式的相互融合、有機銜接，有效地解決各類民事糾紛，維護法律權威和社會穩定。

2. 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，，，，，

3. 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。

4. 糾紛的特徵

公司與工作人員的勞動關系一旦破裂，就容易形成勞動糾紛，針對群體或者個體，勞動糾紛也有不同的分類，不同分類的勞動糾紛也有著一定的特徵。

一、勞動糾紛的分類

勞動爭議按照不同的標准，可劃分為以下幾種：

1．按照勞動爭議當事人人數多少的不同，可分為個人勞動爭議和集體勞動爭議。

個人勞動爭議是勞動者個人與用人單位發生的勞動爭議；集體勞動爭議是指勞動者一方當事人在3人以上，有共同理由的勞動爭議。

2．按照勞動爭議的內容，可分為：因履行勞動合同發生的爭議；因履行集體合同發生的爭議；因企業開除、除名、辭退職工和職工辭職、自動離職發生的爭議；因執行國家有關工作時間和休息休假、工資、保險、福利、培訓、勞動保護的規定發生的爭議等。

3．按照當事人國籍的不同，可分為國內勞動爭議與涉外勞動爭議。國內勞動爭議是指中國的用人單位與具有中國國籍的勞動者之間發生的勞動爭議；涉外勞動爭議是指具有涉外因素的勞動爭議，包括中國在國（境）外設立的機構與中國派往該機構工作的人員之間發生的勞動爭議、外商投資企業的用人單位與勞動者之間發生的勞動爭議。

4、按照勞動爭議的客體來劃分，可分為履行勞動合同爭議、開除爭議、辭退爭議、辭職爭議、工資爭議、保險爭議、福利爭議、培訓爭議等等。

二、勞動糾紛的特徵

⑴勞動糾紛是勞動關系當事人之間的爭議

勞動關系當事人，一方為勞動者，另一方為用人單位。勞動者主要是指與在中國境內的企業、個體經濟組織建立勞動合同關系的職工和與國家機關、事業組織、社會團體建立勞動合同關系的職工。用人單位是指在中國境內的企業、個體經濟組織以及國家機關、事業組織、社會團體等與勞動者訂立了勞動合同的單位。不具有勞動法律關系主體身份者之間所發生的爭議，不屬於勞動糾紛。如果爭議不是發生在勞動關系雙方當事人之間，即使爭議內容涉及勞動問題，也不構成勞動爭議。如，勞動者之間在勞動過程中發生的爭議，用人單位之間因勞動力流動發生的爭議，勞動者者或用人單位與勞動行政管理中發生的爭議，勞動者或用人單位與勞動行政部門在勞動行政管理中發生的爭議，勞動者或用人單位與勞動服務主體在勞動服務過程中發生的爭議等，都不屬勞動糾紛。

⑵勞動糾紛的內容涉及勞動權利和勞動義務，是為實現勞動關系而產生的爭議

勞動關系是勞動權利義務關系，如果勞動者與用人單位之間不是為了實現勞動權利和勞動義務面發生的爭議，就不屬於勞動糾紛的范疇。勞動權利和勞動義務的內容非常廣泛，包括就業、工資、工時、勞動保護、勞動保險、勞動福利、職業培訓、民主管理、獎勵懲罰等。

⑶勞動糾紛既可以表現為非對抗性矛盾，也可以表現為對抗性矛盾

兩者在一定條件下可以相互轉化。在一般情況下，勞動糾表現為非對抗性矛盾，給社會和經濟帶來不利影響。

獲取相關幫助請咨詢邢台勞動糾紛律師

延伸閱讀：

勞動糾紛的處理

勞動爭議仲裁地域管轄

勞動爭議訴訟流程

5. 人們在探索刑事糾紛解決過程中,有哪些明顯特徵

人們在探索刑事糾紛解決過程中應該有一些明顯的特徵，但這些明顯特徵是讓人非常深奧的，所有人去探究的讓人無法知道的。

6. 解決民事糾紛的方式及特點

民事糾紛的解決方式：

1、協商解決。主要是指發生糾紛的雙方，在經過充分的交流和溝通之後，在自願平等的基礎上，協商解決糾紛和分歧。

2、調解解決。在有關組織，公安局，司法局或者某個中間人的主持下，雙方都能夠平心靜氣，互相理解，在平等，自願的基礎上，促使糾紛的雙方達成和解協議，完成糾紛的解決。

3、訴訟解決。是指法院、當事人和其他訴訟參與人，在審理民事案件過程中所進行的各種訴訟活動以及由這些活動所產生的各種訴訟關系的總和。這裡面就涉及訴訟雙方，律師，法官，法院的司法評判，雙方各自的舉證，證據，法官最後的判決。

民事糾紛的特點：

1、民事糾紛主體之間法律地位平等。

2、民事糾紛的內容是對民事權利義務的爭議。

3、民事糾紛的可處分性。分別於行政爭議和刑事爭議。

根據民事糾紛特點和內容，可將民事糾紛分為兩大內容：

1、財產關系方面的民事糾紛，包括財產所有關系的民事糾紛和財產流轉關系的民事糾紛。

2、人身關系的民事糾紛，包括人格權關系民事糾紛和身份關系的民事糾紛。

(6)代替性糾紛解決方式的特徵探究擴展閱讀：

在現實生活中，民事法律關系紛繁復雜、變動不居，而民事法律規范在一定時期內相對穩定。這導致有些民事糾紛在處理過程中可能找不到特別合適的民事法律規范作為依據。

但一些民事行為不符合社會公德，有違善良風俗，如果因為沒有民事法律規范作為依據而不處理，就可能在社會上產生負面影響，甚至帶來「破窗效應」。

處理這些民事糾紛，應運用好公序良俗原則，即民事行為不得違反民法中的公序良俗原則。科學運用公序良俗原則處理民事糾紛，對於懲惡揚善、維護正義、保證社會健康發展具有重要意義。

民法尊重民事主體的意思自治，但意思自治必須以公序良俗原則為基礎，即不得違背公共秩序和善良風俗；如果違背公序良俗，其民事法律行為理應無效。

7. 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。

8. 什麼是替代性糾紛解決方式

具體如下:

一、替代性糾紛解決方式概述

替代性糾紛解決方式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)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,原來是指上世紀逐步發展起來的各種訴訟外糾紛解決方式的總稱,現在一般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。

由於替代性糾紛解決方式是一個總括性、綜合性的概念,其內涵和外延相對均難以准確界定。目前,學界對ADR應包括哪些程序制度仍存在較大分歧,學界爭論的焦點在於ADR是否包括仲裁。一種觀點認為,ADR「是一組供當事人任意選擇用來避免正式對抗性訴訟的辦法」,是當事人之間約定的通過除訴訟以外的方法解決他們之間的爭議的各種方法的總稱,如仲裁、調解等方式。另一種觀點則認為,ADR協議不能保證有一個終局的、對雙方當事人均有拘束力的決定,除非當事人之間就解決爭議達成一致,並能自動執行他們之間業已達成的關於如何解決爭議協議。這種觀點傾向於將仲裁排除在ADR之外。

筆者認為,仲裁是否包括在ADR之內不能一概而論。一要從形式上判斷,它是國際公法領域的仲裁,還是民商事領域的仲裁,前者的裁決基本上靠國際法主體自覺執行,應該屬於ADR。另外還要看是國際商事仲裁,還是國內商事仲裁,在英美國家,一般認為後者是ADR,而前者就不一定,如國際商會ADR(ICC-ADR)把仲裁排除在外,[4]而倫敦國際仲裁院(LCIA)就沒有。[5](P57)二要從實質上分析看它是否與普通的訴訟程序保持合理的距離,看它是否還有足夠的靈活性和較少的正式性。盡管學界對ADR爭論不休,但有一點卻達成了共識,那就是:ADR一般用來解決民商事法律領域的爭端。

二、替代性糾紛解決方式的特點

第一,自主性。在替代性糾紛解決方式中,當事人是平等的主體,雙方可自行決定爭端解決事宜,從而增加了透明度,也增加了可信度,減少了執行的難度。

第二,靈活性。由於整個爭議的解決都是建立在當事人平等自願的基礎之上的,因此當事人可以選擇自己認為合適的程序,如對事實審查,還是對法律審查,還是一並審查,都可以由當事人自己決定。另外,在履行時,當事人不局限於法律規定的救濟,還可以結合任何物質或非物質利益的轉移和交換。

第三,快捷性和經濟性。由於替代性糾紛解決方式不拘泥於程序的完整、周到,靈活多變,因而省時。而WTO爭端解決機制中,從理論上說,如無上訴,需1年,如上訴,需1年3個月,而從實踐來看,花費的時間就更長,如1995年委內瑞拉、巴西訴美國案就花了兩年零七個月。[7](P88-89)替代性糾紛解決方式由於節約時間,成本也相應降低。

第四,可執行性。如WTO爭端解決中採用消極協商一致的原則,把問題留到了執行階段,即使採用交叉報復等手段,可能也於事無補。而運用替代性糾紛解決方式處理爭端,目的是在滿足雙方基本利益的基礎上尋求合法持久的方法,其中通過達成共識來調和雙方的利益是最具建設性的方法。

第五,溫和性。替代性糾紛解決方式一個最大的特點就是:爭端解決的整個過程都是在友好、和諧、平靜的氣氛中進行,減少了雙方的對立,有利於雙方最大限度地作出讓步。

三、替代性糾紛解決方式的種類

替代性糾紛解決方式主要包括:

(一)協商(Negotiation)

協商是最普通的解決糾紛的方式,它是通過直接或間接的聯系方式,使利益發生沖突的當事人進行談判,共同努力消除分歧,而不訴諸仲裁和審判。協商中的聯系以尋找共同的利益基礎和折衷為中心,當事人都本著解決問題的態度,積極尋求雙方都認為滿意的解決問題的方案。

(二)調解(Mediation)

調解是替代性糾紛解決方式中最重要的一種,在當事人之間的聯系中最有影響。簡言之,調解就是由一非當事人的中立方在當事人之間幫助其協商。從中立者的角色看,調解不同於司法解決程序。與法官或仲裁員不同,調解員無權將調解結果強加於當事人。調解員的唯一功能就是幫助發生糾紛者共同去解決其糾紛。調解員的角色和調解的程序,根據糾紛的性質和當事人之間的關系的不同而有所變化。調解員可以幫助找出爭議的問題和各爭議方的利益,幫助在當事人之間傳遞信息,找出達成一致的基礎和不能解決糾紛的後果,找出一個共同解決問題的途徑。通過了解屬於保密范圍的當事人的利益和地位,調解員常常能夠找出當事人最初的願望以外的選擇。所有的努力都是為了加強發生爭議的當事人之間的聯系。調解員可以控制信息的傳遞,降低風險。當事人一方可以將有關信息告訴調解員而不讓對方知道,調解員的出現可以加速當事人之間通過對話協商產生結果。有經驗的調解員會激發當事人想方設法去解決問題。通常,當事人在其所處的地位以及法律賦予的權利以外的利益是很廣泛的,而且常常是有重疊的,調解員就是善於幫助當事人發現其各自的利益以及他們共同的利益所在。調解員還可以幫助當事人選擇最適合的其他各種替代性糾紛解決方式。

由於深受儒家文化傳統影響,以調解為主的非訴訟爭議的實踐在我國有著深厚而悠久的歷史基礎。實踐證明,調解方式在我國發揮了重要的作用。在中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會的仲裁案件中,幾乎有50%的案件經過仲裁員在仲裁程序中進行過調解,而且調解的成功率達到了40%-50%。盡管這樣,我國的調解制度也日益暴露出一些弱點和不足,致使調解發揮不出應有的作用。鼓勵和引導訴訟外的糾紛解決方式,尤其是訴前調解,不僅有利於減少司法資源的投入和減少案件積壓,在一定的程度上降低交易成本和提高糾紛的解決效率,也符合訴訟經濟和鼓勵當事人調解的國際潮流與趨勢。

(三)小型審理(Mini-Trial)

小型審理是一種沒有拘束力的、可以由民間主持也可以由法院主持的解決糾紛的程序。小額審理的形式很多,但其基本思想是相同的。在小型審理中,通常由一個法官或一個中立的顧問(NeutralAdvisor)主持一至兩天的聽證。這種聽證是非正式的,通常沒有證人,因而有關的證據規則和程序也是很寬松的。被賦予解決糾紛權利的當事人的代表———通常是高級執行官(SeniorExecutives)———要親自聽取各方律師的簡短的關於案件的發言。聽證後,高級執行官常常在中立的顧問的幫助下協商解決糾紛。如果協商失敗,中立的顧問會為高級執行官提供一個該糾紛如果進行正式司法審判可能出現的判決,此時雙方再重新進行協商達成協議。小型審理是一種權利和利益基礎混合的程序,小型審理從幾個方面有利於糾紛的解決:有法官等司法人員的介入,在法官的幫助分析下有利於尋求具體的解決方式;雙方高層領導的直接對話避免了代理者決定權的限制,更利於糾紛的解決;非正式的聽證使各方當事人對爭議的問題更為明確,並直接將一方當事人的觀點展示給對方;雖然其審理結果不具有約束力,但鑒於其往往具有正式司法判決的預見性,因此雙方一般都願意採用。小型審理被典型地用於解決國際商事糾紛。

(四)調解與仲裁(Med-Arb)

調解與仲裁是,首先由一中立的第三方(NeutralThirdParty)試圖幫助雙方形成一個糾紛解決決定,如果調解不能解決,該第三方將扮演仲裁員的角色,並對爭議的問題做出裁決。當然,對於將截然不同的兩種程序———調解和仲裁———由同一人主持是否合適是有爭論的,許多從事糾紛解決的人反對這種調解與仲裁合並的糾紛解決方式,認為這樣會破壞仲裁員思維的中立性。同時,在調解中,當事人基於對調解員信任而將其想法合盤托出,以利於調解員幫助其在調解過程中找到更符合其需要的解決問題的方案。而作為仲裁員必須是不偏不倚的,但其將受調解過程中當事人的傾訴的影響。同樣,因害怕調解過程中的傾訴會對仲裁程序造成不利影響,當事人將不再在調解過程中全盤托出自己的想法,這樣就產生了一定的矛盾。當然,由不同的人分別主持調解和仲裁程序將會解決這一矛盾,但無疑會影響效率。[8](P163)

(五)仲裁(Arbitration)

仲裁是由一中立的第三方,在非正式的聽證程序中聽取了當事人的舉證和辯論後,對有關爭議做出有拘束力的裁決。仲裁可以是有拘束力的,也可以是無拘束力的;可以是自願的,也可以是強制性的;可以是當事人約定的,也可以是法律規定的或法院決定的;可以由一名仲裁員主持,也可以由三名仲裁員組成的合議庭主持。仲裁程序的特點在於,是由中立的第三方專家做出最後的裁決。仲裁不像調解那樣使當事人有自決的權利;而其在「或輸或贏」的特徵上與審判是相同的,只不過仲裁是非正式的、更快速、更廉價、當事人可以自己選擇裁判者。

四、替代性糾紛解決方式的價值分析

替代性糾紛解決方式是指在一個社會中,多種多樣的糾紛解決方式以其特定的功能和特點,相互協調地存在所構成的一種互補的、滿足社會主體多種需求的程序體系和動態的運作調整系統。多元化糾紛解決方式的合理性歸因於社會主體對糾紛解決方式的多樣性需求。糾紛解決方式的樣式最終也是由社會物質生活條件和發展所決定的。當今中國,現代型糾紛和現代型訴訟正在以多發的、史無前例的特徵在社會和法院大量出現;改革中的政策變化,例如土地承包權、國企下崗職工等引起的特殊類型的糾紛更是層出不窮,而由於法制尚不夠健全及法官的素質等原因,司法在處理這些方面的能力也是力不從心,因此利益的多元化對糾紛解決方式的多元化的要求也是日益迫切的,並進一步促進了替代性糾紛解決方式的發展。

9. 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.