代替性纠纷解决方式的概念

Ⅰ 民事纠纷的解决方式有哪几种

民事纠纷解决方式主要有三类：自力救济、社会救济、公力救济。自力救济包括自决与和解。社会救济包括调解和仲裁。公力救济包括诉讼和行政裁决。

民事纠纷的处理机制，是指缓解和消除民事纠纷的方法和制度。根据纠纷处理的制度和方法的不同可以从以下三种形式来论述民事纠纷的处理机制。

自力救济

自力救济，包括自决与和解。它是指纠纷主体依靠自身力量解决纠纷，以达到维护自己权益的目的。自决是指纠纷主体一方凭借自己的力量使对方服从。和解是指双方互相妥协和让步。两者共同点是，都是依靠自我的力量来解决争议，无需第三方的参与，也不受任何规范的制约。

社会救济

社会救济，包括调解（诉讼外调解）和仲裁。他是只依靠社会力量处理民事纠纷的一种机制。

调解是由第三者(调解机构或调解人)出面对纠纷的双方当事人进行调停说和，用一定的法律规范和道德规范劝导冲突双方，促使他们在互谅互让的基础上达成解决纠纷的协议。调解协议不具有法律上的强制力，但具有合同意义上的效力。

仲裁是由双方当事人选定的仲裁机构对纠纷进行审理并作出裁决。仲裁不同于调解，仲裁裁决对双方当事人有法律上的拘束力。但是，仲裁与调解一样，也是以双方当事人的自愿为前提条件的，只有纠纷的双方达成仲裁协议，一致同意将纠纷交付裁决，仲裁才能够开始。

公力救济

公力救济，包括诉讼和行政裁决。民事诉讼是指法院在当事人和其他诉讼参与人的参加下，以审理、判决、执行等方式解决民事纠纷的活动，以及由这些活动产生的各种诉讼关系的总和。

民事诉讼动态地表现为法院、当事人及其他诉讼参与人进行的各种诉讼活动，静态地则表现为在诉讼活动中产生的诉讼关系。

行政裁决是指行政机关或法定授权的组织，依照法律授权，对当事人之间发生的、与行政管理活动密切相关的、与合同无关的民事纠纷进行审查，并作出裁决的具体行政行为。行政裁决的主体具有法定性。

行政机关只有获得法律授权，才能对授权范围内的民事纠纷案件进行审查并裁决，没有法律授权，行政机关不能自行决定和裁决某些民事纠纷案件。

(1)代替性纠纷解决方式的概念扩展阅读

民事纠纷是指平等主体的公民、法人或者其他组织之间以及他们相互之间财产关系和人身关系发生的纠纷。比如，财产权、人身权、知识产权受到侵害引起的纠纷，因合同的订立履行引起的纠纷，或者因婚姻、继承、收养等家庭关系等引起的纠纷。

发生了民事纠纷，当事人可以请求人民调解委员会、有关单位、有关行政部门进行调解，也可以依法向仲裁机构申请仲裁，或者向人民法院提起民事诉讼。

人民调解委员会是在基层人民政府和基层人民法院指导下，调解民间纠纷的组织。人民调解委员会依照法律规定，根据自愿原则进行调解。当事人对调解达成的协议应当履行;不愿调解、调解不成或者反悔的，可以向人民法院起诉。

有关单位、有关行政部门的调解，主要指当事人所在单位或者某些行政管理部门对民事纠纷的调解，比如当事人所在单位对离婚问题的调解，公安部门对于因交通事故产生的损害赔偿所做的调解。有关单位和行政部门对民事纠纷调解不成的，当事人可以向人民法院提起诉讼。

人民调解委员会和有关单位、有关行政部门的调解不是解决民事纠纷的必经程序，民事纠纷的当事人可以不经调解而直接向人民法院提起民事诉讼。

参考资料来源：网络-民事纠纷

Ⅱ 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。

Ⅲ 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。

Ⅳ 作为解决国际贸易争议的两种方式，仲裁与ADR有何异同

国际商事仲裁是adr的一种机制。

adr ,即Alternative Dispute Resolution 的缩写,这一概念源于美国,原来是指本世纪逐步发展起来的各种诉讼纠纷解决方式,现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程序或机制的总称。这一概念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(诉讼外或判决外) 纠纷解决方式”或“非诉讼纠纷解决程序”、“法院外纠纷解决方式”等。

adr机制的主要模式
（1） 协商。协商是双方争议解决的最简易方式，因为没有第三方的参加，争议双方在一起协商，可以有律师做代理也可以没有律师参与。
（2） 调解。调解是指第三者应争议双方当事人的请求,通过尽量协调双方的分歧,而不是作出有约束力的决定的方式解决当事人之间争议的方法。调解可以说是adr中最为常见和最重要的一种形式,是所有其他形式的adr的基础。与法庭审判相比,调解花费低廉、耗时少,当事人心理压力较小。
（3） 仲裁。与其他方式相比，仲裁更具有司法性。仲裁是由一个中立方听取各方意见后作出一个对各方有约束力的终局裁判。这个裁判可以由法院进行强制执行。实际上几乎所有的商务纠纷都可以提交仲裁，只要双方订立有仲裁协议或在合同中定有仲裁条款。
（4）小型审理。该模式是ADR机制的新发展，实质上是一种模拟诉讼的调解方式。它的最大作用就是解决那些涉及面较大，混合着法律和事实的复杂纠纷，象产品责任纠纷、反垄断纠纷等。通常由当事人双方各指派一名高级行政长官组成专门小组,并共同推选一名首席调解员。各方当事人所指定的行政长官一般只代表各方当事人的利益。轮流以口头或书面方式提出自己的意见,如同法院公开审理一样,只不过形式更简单[5]。
（5） 律师或中立专家的联合磋商( 早期审理评议)。这种模式是由一个独立的第三人，可以是一名律师或技术专家，听取争议双方的意见，提出自己的观点，帮助双方解决争端，经常被用于当纠纷一方或者双方想向一个有经验的个人咨询自己在有关案件中所处的优势或劣势的建议。
（6） 简易陪审团审判。它通过民事陪审团的介入促进在司法审判中解决争议。目前,简易陪审团审判在美国是相当普通的实践。在这种解决争议的模式中,陪审团在任何官方听证会举行之前,听取各方当事人的简要陈述,并作出一个建议性的裁决。该裁决可能会构成当事人进行谈判磋商的基础,从而使当事人免于陷入冗繁费时的法院诉讼。

由此可见，国际商事仲裁是ADR的一种机制。

Ⅳ 纠纷主体可选择Adr替代诉讼程序的根源与效果

摘要 代替性纠纷解决方式，即英文Alternative Dispute Resolution（缩写为ADR）的意译。这一概念既可以根据字面意义译为“代替性（或替代性、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，原来是本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

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 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，，，，，

Ⅷ 不用打官司解决纠纷的方式含义方便怎样

不用打官司解决纠纷的方式主要有：
1、双方协商解决；
2、找人调解解决；
3、申请仲裁。