Commercial Arbitration as a Business-to-Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution under Saudi Law: Challenges, Opportunities, and Proposals

ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution)이란 소송절차에 따른 재판에 의하지 않고 분쟁을 해결하는 것으로 일반적으로 대체적 분쟁해결제도라고 부른다. ADR은 분쟁당사자의 자주성을 활용한 해결, 프라이버시를 보호하는 비공개적 해결, 간이·신속하고 경제적인 해결, 다양한 분야의 전문가를 활용한 해결, 권리·의무의 존부에 관계없이 실정에 적합한 해결이 가능하며, 나아가 법원의 사건부담을 경감시킬 수 있다는 장점을 가지고 있어서 세계 각국에서 활발하게 운영되고 있다. ADR은 그 설치자나 운영자가 누구인가에 따라서 사법형 ADR, 행정형 ADR, 민간형 ADR로 분류할 수 있는데, 민간형 ADR은 법원이나 정부기관이 아닌 민간이 설치·운영하는 ADR을 의미한다. 우리나라의 경우 법원에서 운영하는 사법형 ADR은 비교적 활발하게 운영되는 편이고, 행정형의 경우에도 50여개 이상의 ADR기관이 설치·운영되고 있어서 그 이용가능성이 높은 편인데 반하여, 민간형의 경우 주로 기업간의 상사분쟁을 대상으로 하는 대한상사중재원을 제외하고는 민간형 ADR기관이 거의 없다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 분쟁당사자의 자주성에 의한 해결이라는 ADR의 의의를 살리고 개인간의 민사분쟁에 대한 효율적인 분쟁해결시스템을 구축하기 위해서는 민간형 ADR기관을 육성할 필요가 있다. 이러한 점을 감안하여 이 논문에서는 우선, 민간형 ADR의 개념 및 현황, 그리고 미국, 영국, 일본 등 주요국가의 민간형 ADR제도에 관한 동향을 살펴본 후, 마지막으로 우리나라의 민간형 ADR기관의 효율적인 육성방안에 관하여 다음과 같이 몇 가지 방안을 제시하고 있다. 첫째, ADR에 관한 기본법을 제정해야 한다. 둘째, ADR종합지원센터를 설립하고 예산을 지원해야 한다. 셋째, ADR교육을 강화할 수 있는 시스템을 마련하고 ADR 전문가를 양성해야 한다. 넷째, ADR에 대한 사회적 인식을 제고하기 위하여 홍보를 강화해야 한다.Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is to resolve a dispute instead of litigation. ADR allows the resolution of a dispute through the uses of the independence of the parties in conflict, non-disclosed resolution for protecting the privacy of the parties in conflict, and experts in various fields, and it also provides a practical solution regardless of the presence or existence of rights and/or obligations. In addition, it could reduce the burden of the court. Depending on those in charge of the installation of operation of ADR, it can be classified into judicial ADR, administrative ADR, and private ADR. Private ADR refers to ADR installed and operated by the private sector, not courts or government institutes. In the case of Korea, judicial ADR, operated by the court, is relatively widely used and administrative ADR is installed and operated by more than 50 ADR institutions, but there is almost no private ADR institution, except for the Commercial Arbitration Board, in charge of resolution of disputes among corporations. Considering that the ultimate purpose of ADR is to resolve a dispute through the use of independence of the parties in conflict and it is necessary to establish an efficient dispute resolution system for civil disputes between individuals, it is necessary to develop private ADR institutions. In this study, the concept and current status of private ADRs and the recent trends of private ADRs in major nations such as the US, the UK, and Japan were reviewed and then, the development plan of private ADR institutions in Korea was established as follows. First, the ADR Framework Act should be enacted. Second, the ADR Comprehensive Support Center should be established and funded. Third, ADR education must be strengthened and ADR experts should be trained. Fourth, ADR should be advertised to raise the social awareness about ADR.

Due to its quicker and more effective alternative to the traditional court system, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has grown in significance within India's legal system. The current ADR legislation in India were passed more than 20 years ago, and since then, they have undergone some changes. However, in order to address the current issues the ADR system is facing, further extensive reforms are required. This essay examines the current ADR rules in India, examines the difficulties the system faces, and contrasts them with the UK's ADR legislation. The report makes suggestions for ADR legislative amendments in India based on the UK model. The report emphasises the necessity for strengthening the Indian ADR system to increase its effectiveness because it is still in its infancy. The ADR system has difficulties such as inadequate training of ADR practitioners, low public awareness of the ADR system, and the requirement for an efficient enforcement mechanism. The article makes the case that India's ADR regulations could be improved by using the UK model as a model. The ADR system in the UK is more extensive, with many ADR mechanisms that are well-regulated and have explicit standards on the education and training requirements for ADR practitioners. The study concludes by advising India to implement extensive reforms to strengthen its ADR laws. The suggested reforms include broadening the use of ADR procedures, creating a governing organisation for ADR practitioners, establishing minimal requirements for the education and experience of ADR practitioners, and creating a strong enforcement system. India can enhance the efficiency and efficacy of its ADR system by adopting the UK model of ADR laws. This will assist to decrease the backlog of cases in the courts, provide timely justice to litigants, and lessen the strain on the judiciary.

In recent years, alternative dispute resolution (ADR)(1) has received a great deal of attention at the federal level. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), whose mission is to promote improvements in the efficiency, fairness, and adequacy of federal agency operating procedures, held conferences, conducted research, and published recommendations promoting the use of ADR by federal agencies throughout the 1980s. This interest in ADR stems from the observation that dispute resolution techniques can eliminate delays, reduce demands on government, and produce more cost-effective and more satisfying results than traditional administrative procedures or litigation (Susskind, Babbitt, and Segal, 1993; Dukes, 1993). A diverse set of agencies and departments--some in response to ACUS' urging and some on their own initiative--have used ADR approaches such as negotiation, mediation, fact finding, and minitrials to resolve a wide variety of controversial public issues.(2) Congress responded to this growing interest in ADR by passing the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (public Law 101-648) and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-552) in 1990. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act establishes a structure for using consensus-based negotiations to develop federal regulations. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (known as the federal ADR act) is more comprehensive in scope. It directs each agency to: designate an in-house dispute resolution specialist; provide ADR training for agency personnel; review all programs for ADR opportunities; adopt dispute resolution policies; and examine grant and contract language to identify means of promoting ADR over litigation (Madigan, 1992; Susskind, Babbitt, and Segal, 1993). The successful implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act faces a number of challenges. The act provides no budgetary support for ADR, and existing budgeting procedures often encourage the use of litigation (Susskind, Babbitt, and Segal, 1993). Although ACUS has provided guidance, agency officials will have to learn a number of new skills including identifying disputes that are potential candidates for ADR, selecting the appropriate ADR process for specific situations, and choosing third-party neutrals who can work with the disputants. Although ACUS recommendations and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act address the important issues of confidentiality, representativeness, and accountability, federal officials will have to grapple with the reality of these challenging aspects of ADR (Amy, 1990; Hamilton, 1991; Susskind, 1981). Successfully implementing the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act also will involve confronting deeper issues associated with the traditional practice and context of public administration and the culture of professionalism. Stephenson and Pops (1991) have questioned whether administrators have the capacity--in terms of education, training, and role--to participate effectively in ADR. In recent years, numerous federal agencies have provided ADR training in specialized workshops or as part of more broadly focused leadership development programs. However, more challenging than providing training and technical assistance will be overcoming the barriers of professionalism: the resistance generated by traditional norms and role expectations. Professionally trained government officials may find it difficult to reconcile' ADR--often perceived as political bargaining--with their existing norms and procedures for technical or scientific decision making. Negotiating with members of the public may be viewed as being unprofessional (Freemuth, 1989; Manring, 1993; Stephenson and Pops, 1991). Public officials also may fear that ADR will mean a loss of decision-making authority (Bingham, 1986; Meeks, 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). In this article, I examine one such issue that inevitably accompanies the use of ADR but receives little direct attention: the relationship between ADR and administrative responsiveness. …

This study examines the question, of whether the pervading disappointment surrounding the practice of commercial arbitration in Sri Lanka, is due to the assimilation of court practices into commercial arbitration by the legal practitioners. Arbitration as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method to judicial processes was introduced with the enactment of Arbitration Act No.11 of 1995 and hailed as an effective ADR for the resolution of commercial disputes. Participants were ten senior legal practitioners involved in both court practice as well as commercial arbitration for more than ten years in Sri Lanka. The study used a phenomenological research design to explore the perspectives of ten participants. It was hypothesised that the legal practitioners involved in both court and commercial arbitration practice would have a deeper understanding of the disappointments surrounding commercial arbitration practice and why commercial arbitration has not yielded the anticipated result of efficiency in dispute resolution over court practice. The results indicated that the same practitioners in court and arbitration, bring the same attitudes and skill set practised in courts into commercial arbitration. Thus, the emerging theme is to create an attitudinal shift in the participants of commercial arbitration for the speedy resolution of disputes in comparison to formal court practice. Keywords: Commercial arbitration; Alternative Dispute Resolution; speedy resolution of disputes; attitudinal shift.

The article is devoted to the problems of alternative civil dispute resolution and understanding of this phenomenon in western legal tradition and through the national paradigm of forms of protection of civil rights, freedoms and interests. The conception of “alternative dispute resolution” was analyzed by foreign and national scholars, such as M. Cappelletti, B. Garth, F. Sander, E. I. Nosyreva, O. M. Spektor, V. V. Komarov and others.The main objective of the paper is to analyse the essence of alternative dispute resolution as an order of protection and as a form of protection of civil rights. The author delimits such categories as order of protection and form of protection. From this point of view alternative dispute resolution is considered to be an independent form of protection of civil rights, freedoms and interests as well as judicial, administrative, notarial forms of protection and the protection in European court of human rights. As a result alternative dispute resolution can be understood as a form of protection of civil rights, freedoms and interests which consists of quasi-judicial and consensual methods of resolving civil disputes, based on voluntariness of treatment of persons, who was a participators of dispute, and voluntariness of enforcement of final decision of such procedure, which thought can be enforced coercively in a simplified procedure

This chapter provides a detailed discussion on the concepts surrounding the terms conflict and dispute. After establishing the necessary grounding, the chapter then moves into exploring (in significant detail) the concepts framing the idea of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The chapter provides a detailed discussion, based on contemporary literature, to differentiate between disputes and conflicts. Then the discussion will focus on removing commonly found confusions related to the vocabulary of conflict and ADR. Following this, various key government acts and reports that shape the state of ADR are discussed. In an effort to ensure brevity, only those concerns that relate directly to ADR or directly address ADR are discussed. This follows with a discussion on dispute resolution in tribal and indigenous societies and what locally derived methods are practiced.

1. Dispute Resolution, Karl Mackie, Part 1. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Procedural Justice, Introduction, 2. Procedure or Result, Tom Tyler, 3. Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Civil Justice System, George Appleby 4. Complaints Mechanisms in Administrative Law: Recent Developments, Patrick Birkinshaw 5. Developments in Commercial Arbitration, R. E. Wright, 6. Neighbour Disputes, Tony F. Marshall, 7. Negotiation and Mediation, Karl J. Mackie, Part 2. Disputes in Social Context, Introduction 8. Industrial Relations Disputes, ACAS 9. Alternative Dispute Resolution, John Birds and Cosmo Graham, 10. Family Conciliation, Janet Walker, 11. Articulating the Power of 'Us Plus Them', Tony Gibson, 12. Local Authority Decision Making and Homelessness, Graham Robson 13. Consumer Protection, Richard Thomas, Part 3. ADR - Some International Experience, Introduction 14. Non-Judicial Dispute Processing in West Germany, Dorothea Eidmann and Konstanze Plett 15. Building an Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Bonita J. Thompson QC, 16. Mediation and the People's Republic of China, Micheal J. E. Palmer, 17. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australia, David A. Newton, Part 4. Training, Research and Futures, Introduction, 18. Training Mediators, David A. Cruickshank, 19. Considering Dispute Resolution, Neil Gold, 20. Conclusion: Dispute Resolution Futures, Karl J. Mackie

The activities of capital market players in the case of securities transactions usually lead to a dispute involving vendors or service providers, agreements, and contracts related to investment, one of the dispute resolution institutions or differences of opinion in the capital market through the procedures agreed by the parties is BAPMI. The role and responsibility of the arbitrator, mediator, and adjudicator in the settlement of disputes in the capital market, the form of dispute resolution conducted by the arbitrator, mediator, and adjudicator in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) outside the court, as well as the enforcement of the decision given by the arbitrator, mediator, and adjudicator to the disputing party in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) outside the court. The results of discussion and analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution with mediation approach is the right initial choice in solving capital market disputes. Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Capital Markets, Economy

India is country habitants having many religion and cultures, since centuries habitants of India has evolved with several forms of dispute resolution mechanisms and over period of time, they have customized, varied according to needs. Even though Britisher’s rulers had left Indian shores almost half a century ago, still several of these laws exist till date without any major changes. Wide Internet usage has rendered boundaries of the states meaningless. The people across the globe have realized its potentiality as an effective tool for communication, dissemination of information and e-commerce and enjoying to unrestricted access to multifarious interactions, transactions inevitably thereby raising many new issues in the nature of e-disputes to virtual sale/purchase of products through e-auctions or otherwise, domain disputes, trademark infringement, patents, software infringement, copyright, defamatory writings, fraud, privacy, etc. In this scenario the Intellectual Property Rights are becoming fundamentally exigent to get in to research collaborations and thereby making Intellectual property rights tool as valuable business assets for technological entities. The people across world over frequently involve in cross-border transactions having different backgrounds and different national laws or within different states of India. Some time disputable transactions create multi-jurisdictional disputes between the nationalities of different countries having different social backgrounds, mindsets. Usually those business entities having familiarity with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are able to resolve such conflicts efficiently. As the determination of commercial or non commercial disputes before different national courts can result in to high legal and other costs as well as conflicting awards. Therefore, the ADR has a potential to provide business entities belonging to distinct nationalities a single unified forum of arbitration thereby having a final and enforceable award binding across multiple jurisdictions. Hence, increasingly, IP owners and users are approaching to many of known alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures like arbitration and mediation to resolve their IP disputes. In this scenario the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been playing pivotal role since i ts inception in strengthening ADR procedures for IP conflicts and forefront in resolving IP conflicts through their specialized ADR procedures. The Intellectual Property conflicts are not that conflicts which cannot be adjudicated or resolved through ADR. As Intellectual Property conflicts being a specialised in its nature and it require specialised services of ADR experts in resolving IP conflicts, mainly due to non availability of IP experts in India is the main obstacle in resolving IP conflict through arbitration or through ADR. Thus, like any other emerging field of law, IP conflict resolution also has a plenty of debatable issues before it. In this research paper, It will be my endeavor to delve deep into these issues like amongst mainly i) Whether ADR: arbitration and mediation can be real alternative to IP disputes litigation, ii ) whether IP right disputes like any other commercial disputes can be brought under ADR procedure or not If so, to what extent?. iii) When is ADR to be preferred, when is it to be avoided; and, if ADR is preferred, what form of ADR should be pursued? iv) Whether, an alternative dispute resolution procedure can play effective role in resolving IP conflicts if so to what extent? v) Whether the parties to IP conflicts can reap overall benefits by invoking ADR procedures in comparison to traditional litigation, if so, to what extent? vi) Whether the use of a private consensual mechanism like arbitration or mediation procedures pose any threat to the resolution of such specialised disputes, if so, to what extent?

Traditional international legal scholarship often distinguishes between diplomatic and legal methods of dispute resolution. However, this article posits that this division is often artificial, as international disputes are inherently shaped by intertwined legal and political dimensions, influencing strategic choices of states in dispute resolution. Framed by the concept of politique juridique extérieur, the study explores how states navigate various factors to align their dispute resolution strategies with their broader foreign policy objectives. Focusing on the Americas, this research examines the utilization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms within the context of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá). The article addresses two primary research questions: (i) whether political factors influence the decision to resort to ADR, and (ii) the role of legal instruments establishing ADR in the Americas, specifically whether their existence determines or influences the choice of a given ADR mechanism. The article is structured in two main parts. Part I analyzes the interplay of law and politics in the selection of dispute resolution mechanisms, examining the conventional distinctions between diplomatic and adjudicatory means, the embeddedness of legal disputes in political contexts, and the complex factors guiding choices of the states. Part II focuses on the selection of ADR mechanisms in the Americas, specifically analyzing the dispute resolution provisions of the Pact of Bogotá and the observed infrequent direct use of its ADR procedures. The main argument presented is that the choice of dispute resolution strategy in the Americas, including ADR, is significantly context-dependent and driven by political considerations and foreign legal policy objectives, rather than solely by the availability of legal instruments. While the Americas boast a history of including ADR in treaties, the practical application, particularly of the Pact of Bogotá, reveals a preference for political mechanisms within the Organization of American States (OAS) and, notably, the use of the Pact to establish jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), over direct reliance on its ADR provisions. In conclusion, the article finds that political factors do indeed influence the decision to utilize ADR. While legal instruments establishing ADR exist in the Americas, their mere presence does not guarantee their active use. Instead, the more readily accessible and politically established frameworks of the OAS often provide the primary avenues for peaceful dispute settlement, with the Pact of Bogotá being more frequently employed for accessing the ICJ. Furthermore, the research acknowledges that the often-primary role of political mechanisms over treaty-based ADR methods may stem from the inflexible structure of the Pact’s provisions, which can limit the scope for states to employ ADR means. Keywords: International Dispute Settlement. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Americas. Pact of Bogotá.

Disputes, conflicts, and land issues never seem to recede, and tend to increase in intensity and diversity, as it becomes increasingly difficult to access land and increase the bargaining position between the three development actors - government, the private sector, and community to acquire land. The type of research is normative research that is analytical descriptive. The data collection technique used is literature study. Legal materials used include (1) the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 40 of 1996, Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 and; (2) Secondary law materials: Scientific books; Documents; Reports and materials from the internet. Due to the various obstacles experienced by the justice seekers in court in court, it is time to take a relatively simple alternative (non-litigation) dispute resolution, shorter time and lower cost. This model is called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The familiar forms of ADR in Indonesia include mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and negotiation. Of the various types of ADR, which is more suitable to be applied in the field of land is mediation. This choice is based on consideration because the structure and mechanism are simpler. Besides, for the Indonesian people who uphold the principle of discussion to reach consensus, this institution feels familiar. And lately, the means used by Komnas HAM in resolving various disputes also utilize the principles of mediation

The Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure provides an amicable settlement mechanism with the assistance of independent or so-called neutral professionals to resolve conflicts between the contracting parties. Alternative dispute resolution has become increasingly relevant in today’s world, and the number of agreements involving alternative dispute resolution provisions is steadily growing. Alternative dispute resolution is typically more efficient and time-saving than conventional court litigation, which is one of the causes for its development. The current research explores European Union mediation’s most common alternative dispute resolution strategy. It is mainly concerned with the mediation of legal and commercial conflicts. The research discusses European Union alternative dispute resolution patterns and associated requirements under the European Union statute, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation (2002), as well as other laws defined by alternative dispute resolution related organisations such as the International Chamber of Commerce and Effective Dispute Resolution Centre. It also draws parallels between the United States of America and the courts of some Member States of the European Union regarding alternative dispute resolution matters. Furthermore, it finds alternative dispute resolution in the sense of the right to adequate remedies (fundamental principle of the European Union). The study further explores the roots of alternative dispute resolution, its features and applicability, and the benefits of alternative dispute resolution over litigation/arbitration procedures, both of which tend to facilitate alternative dispute resolution’s broader use of business dispute resolution procedures. The qualitative research methodology will be applying for this research.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a mechanism that allows consumers and traders to resolve disputes efficiently and effectively. The European Union (EU) has a comprehensive framework for ADR, which is currently under revision. This revision aims to adapt the ADR framework to digital markets, enhance access to ADR in cross-border disputes through digital tools, and streamline ADR procedures. The Directive on Consumer ADR encompasses all categories of disputes pertaining to EU consumer rights and encourages traders to increase their participation in ADR claims through the duty to respond. In North Macedonia, a new Consumer Protection Law, transposing various EU directives related to consumer protection, came into effect in 2022. This law contributes to establishing a legal framework that ensures a higher level of consumer rights protection. It also provides mechanisms for swiftly resolving disputes between traders and consumers. The law favours alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, but the legal framework for ADR in consumer disputes is yet to be fully established. In summary, both the EU and North Macedonia have robust frameworks for consumer protection. These frameworks aim to safeguard consumer rights, ensure fair trade practices, and provide effective mechanisms for dispute resolution. As the EU legislation and practices in this field are evolving and improving, policymakers and enforcement agencies in North Macedonia are yet to catch up and provide an environment conducive to ADR for consumer disputes.

Call for Papers: Special Issue on Alternative Dispute Resolution for the Engineering and Construction Industry

Property disputes cannot be avoided in the present era, this is due to various primary needs that are very high in today's times for example the number of land plots is limited in the development of home property. This demands improvements in the field of arrangement and use of property for the welfare of the community and especially its legal certainty. For this reason, various efforts are made by the government to seek the settlement of property disputes quickly to avoid the buildup of property disputes, which can harm the community, for example, property cannot be used because the land is in dispute. Basically, the choice of dispute resolution can be done with 2 (two) processes. The process of dispute resolution through litigation in court and non-litigation, as the initial stage of settlement, this paper has highlighted the settlement of property disputes in the initial residence using mediation as an alternative dispute resolution in property disputes with a voluntary mediation scheme. Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Voluntary Mediation, Ownership Rights