Marriage, Divorce and Mediation of Family Disputes in Judaism and Islam

Research and innovation are essential to address global challenges. Intellectual Property Rights are of fundamental importance to Research and Development (R&D) collaborations. Intellectual property rights are valuable business assets. The creation, protection and exploitation of IP rights continue to grow at an exponential rate globally. Such commercial or non-commercial transactions frequently involve cross-border transactions, parties from different backgrounds and different national laws. The complex nature of such transactions often results in multi-jurisdictional disputes involving parties from many different countries having different business, legal and cultural backgrounds, attitudes and expectations.‬ ‬ Such disputes are resolved efficiently by parties familiar with available alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options. Especially for parties of distinct nationalities, ADR uniquely provides parties with a single unified forum. Arbitration specifically provides a final and enforceable award binding across multiple jurisdictions. The determination of such disputes before different national courts can result in potentially conflicting and unsatisfactory outcomes, as well as high legal and other costs associated with litigating in different countries.‬ Therefore, increasingly, IP owners and users are turning to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures such as arbitration and mediation to resolve their disputes. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is at the forefront of IP ADR procedures. The main obstacle to using arbitration to resolve Intellectual Property disputes is the issue of its subject-matter ‘arbitrability’. Thinking carefully about the options available to resolve disputes may be central to the success or failure of research collaborations. In this context, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as mediation, (expedited) arbitration and expert determination may be time- and cost-effective alternatives to court procedures. Thus, like any other emerging field of law, IP Dispute Resolution has a plethora of debatable questions. In this paper, I have made an endeavor to delve into these issues like whether or not the disputes over IP rights are 'arbitrable'? If so, whether the use of alternative dispute resolution methods presents the owner of the IP with any benefits? Also, whether the use of a private consensual mechanism like arbitration or mediation poses any threat to the resolution of such disputes?

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. …

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.

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

The development of the motor vehicle industry sector is currently growing rapidly both domestically and imported from abroad so that in this business such as manufacturers, dealers and traders of vehicles competing with each other to provide facilities to consumers in order to increase turnover trading. In this research, it discusses efforts to resolve disputes between business owners who are harmed by consumers in the non-litigation process, and analyzes the obstacles that occur in the resolution of such disputes. The method used in this study is the empirical research method. The data used are primary and secondary data. The results showed that efforts to resolve disputes between business owners, especially motor vehicle leasing when harmed by consumers, were carried out by non-litigation, namely by using an alternative dispute resolution outside the court with mediation and negotiation mechanisms to the tenants who had apologized by returning the money agreed by both parties. In addition, the inhibiting factor in efforts to resolve disputes between business owners who are disadvantaged by consumers in the dispute resolution process is the rule of law factor. In this case because the loss is classified in the civil realm, it requires time to prove the loss that must get legality from the court. Not only the rule of law, but also law enforcement factors that process cases for so long and slow respond.

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

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.

Jewish law, like other religious laws, commands universal application to all Jews. Had all states chosen religious law to apply to marriage and divorce, limping marriages and divorces would have been restricted to persons who are regarded as belonging to several religions (decided from the point of view of that religion), or to none. This would have also been the case had all persons, regardless of the civil law applicable to such matters, adhered to religious laws. However, as long as some states, e.g., Israel, apply religious law to personal status, whereas others apply civil law, limping personal status poses a very real problem.1 Such conflicts befall also Jews who regard themselves bound not only by the civil laws of their state of habitual residence, but also, by autonomous choice, by Jewish law precepts.The modern, relatively free movement of persons in the international arena has created an urgent need for harmonization of personal status under civil and religious laws. A Jewish couple, married and domiciled in Israel, may move to a country which recognizes only civil divorces. Following an irretrievable marriage breakdown, one spouse sues for divorce and has the marriage dissolved by the civil court. Civil divorce is not recognized by Jewish law. Should the wife return to Israel she would remain agunah, i.e., anchored or chained to her husband until a Jewish divorce is effected. Any children that she may have as a result of her relations with another Jewish man would be considered mamzerim, bastards according to Jewish law, unable to marry a Jew, unless the intended spouse is a mamzer too, or a proselyte.The paper first explains the Jewish law rules regarding divorce and their application in Israel. An analysis will follow of the response of Jewish law to the problems of limping personal status. Although it is in the first place the responsibility of the rabbinical authorities to help the members of their religious community, it is arguable that Western Civilization, by separating State from Religion, has deprived religious authorities of the power they had previously to deal with such situations. Indeed, the civil courts of many states found ways to mitigate the suffering of chained spouses, mostly wives but occasionally some husbands. Some states have even responded with helpful legislation.

Review of <i>Best Practice in Construction Disputes: Avoidance, Management and Resolution</i> by Dr. Paula Gerber and Brennan J. OngLexisNexis Butterworths, New South Wales, Australia; 2013; ISBN 978-0-409-33307-7; 493 pp.; $110.

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

The paper includes scientific approaches to defining the concept and models of mediation as a conflict resolution procedure. Mediation is defined in a narrow and broad sense. Mediation in a narrow sense is proposed to be understood as a structured process of alternative conflict and dispute resolution, in which a neutral intermediary (mediator) helps organize a dialogue between the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement or make decisions. Mediation in a broad sense is proposed to be understood as a complex, structured process of alternative conflict and dispute resolution, covering social, legal and psychological aspects of communication aimed at resolving the conflict, with the formation of a culture of consensus decision-making, the development of negotiation practices and the prevention of escalation of further conflicts through dialogue, mutual understanding and voluntary search for optimal solutions with the participation of a neutral third party (mediator). It is determined that scientists use the concept of "mediation model" as a "mediation style" or "type of mediation". It is revealed that the model determines the approach to conducting mediation; The mediation style determines the behavior of the mediator (for example, directive, neutral); the type of mediation or type of mediation determines the scope of application of mediation (for example, family mediation, business mediation). It is revealed that the main purpose of mediation models, as theoretical constructs, is to form guidelines for the development of mediation practice. It is determined that the distinction between mediation models is necessary for the systematization of approaches to resolving conflicts and disputes. The main mediation models were characterized, which include facilitative, evaluative, transformational, narrative, humanistic, restorative. The criteria for distinguishing mediation models are determined: the purpose of mediation, the role of the mediator, the degree of mediator intervention, an exhaustive description of mediation, the scope of mediation use, orientation to the future or the past.

Constitutional law and religious law are often portrayed as diametrically opposed domains. While there are obvious foundational differences between the two domains, the simplistic portrayal of religious law as altogether irrelevant to contemporary discussions about engagement with the laws of others provides an all-too-easy excuse for contemporary constitutional discourse to blind itself to religious law’s rich history and doctrinal innovation. Alongside other possible new horizons of interdisciplinary inquiry, religious law may provide a fertile terrain for placing contemporary debates in (comparative) constitutional law in a broader context. In particular, few authors have paid close attention to the potential value of legal concepts developed within religious law to meeting the challenge of encounters with foreign law. Even fewer have drawn analogies between the effects of extra-doctrinal factors on interpretation in the two domains. The poignant dilemmas of rejection of or interaction with foreign law yearn for thorough and prompt cross-disciplinary analysis, as their relevance to contemporary constitutional law comes to echo their historic importance in religious law. In this article, I explore elements of early engagement with the constitutive laws of others along two lines: (i) various doctrinal innovations in pre-modern religious law, particularly Jewish law, in respect to engagement with the laws of others; (ii) earthly motivations for change to religious law’s treatment of external sources and practices. I conclude by suggesting that the current liberal constitutional canon’s hostility toward religion, in particular its simplistic portrayal of religion as a monolithically “traditional,” “particularist,” “backward” and outdated domain runs the risk of throwing out the baby (religious law) with the bathwater (religion).

Constitutional law and religious law are often portrayed as diametrically opposed domains. While there are obvious foundational differences between the two domains, the simplistic portrayal of religious law as altogether irrelevant to contemporary discussions about engagement with the laws of others provides an all-too-easy excuse for contemporary constitutional discourse to blind itself to religious law’s rich history and doctrinal innovation. Alongside other possible new horizons of interdisciplinary inquiry, religious law may provide a fertile terrain for placing contemporary debates in (comparative) constitutional law in a broader context. In particular, few authors have paid close attention to the potential value of legal concepts developed within religious law to meeting the challenge of encounters with foreign law. Even fewer have drawn analogies between the effect of extra-doctrinal factors on interpretation in the two domains. The poignant dilemmas of rejection of or interaction with foreign law yearn for thorough and prompt cross-disciplinary analysis, as their relevance to contemporary constitutional law comes to echo their historic importance in religious law. In this article, I explore elements of early engagement with the constitutive laws of others along two lines: (i) various doctrinal innovations in pre-modern religious law, particularly Jewish law, in respect to engagement with the laws of others; (ii) earthly motivations for change to religious law’s treatment of external sources and practices. I conclude by suggesting that the current liberal constitutional canon’s hostility toward religion, in particular its simplistic portrayal of religion as a monolithically “traditional,” “particularist,” “backward” and outdated domain runs the risk of throwing out the baby (religious law) with the bathwater (religion).

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

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?