The Violation of Rule Against Bias in The Administration of Justice for The Breach of Professional Code of Conduct Committed by The Accredited Reconciliators, Negotiators, Mediators and Arbitrators in Tanzania

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has long played a significant role in the legal system of Bangladesh, particularly in the Civil Justice System. Before 2012, there was no mandatory provision regarding the settlement of disputes through mediation in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Mediation was an optional process to conduct civil proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2003. Since 2012, mediation has been mandatory in all civil suits and appeals. The main objectives behind this were to reduce the backlog of civil suits, relieve the pressure on the subordinate courts and ensure access to justice for everyone in an amicable manner. However, the outcomes of this amendment have yet to meet the ADR goals. Currently, it is quite apparent that the subordinate courts of Bangladesh are overloaded with millions of pending civil suits and criminal cases. At the same time, ADR has not yet been well developed in the criminal justice system of Bangladesh. Alternative Dispute Resolution is thus the finest option available in our country for achieving justice for everybody. There are several shortcomings in the ADR mechanism of Bangladesh, such as CPC does not provide any specific guidelines for the mediators, though mediation has been made compulsory in it. This paper examines some notable legal constraints on the way to ensure the effective implementation of ADR and offers some observations on ensuring access to justice for all population groups in Bangladesh.

This research project explores the implementation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs within the broader rule of law program context. A case study is presented using field research and primary sources of one well-developed ADR country, Qatar. In particular, Qatar showcases how arbitration and mediation are being used as positive means of resolving legal disputes and working towards better administration of justice. ADR has been introduced as a method that offers newly-developed mechanisms and alternatives that greatly assist judges, barristers and legal experts in expediting legal cases, finding creative legal ways to solve court issues and facilitate the unclogging of institutional bottlenecks that usually characterize the Arab legal systems. As such, Qatar's example may have the potential to serve as a template for other MENA countries that are embarking on their own rule of law reforms, since it is perceived as model nation in the region (in terms of spearheading the adoption of ADR laws). However, ADR laws in the region as a whole, remain relatively undeveloped despite the existence of a supportive legal framework. My research would analyze the current legislative framework of ADR within MENA countries, with a focus on Qatar - given ADR advancements there, particularly the dispute settlement procedure and administration of justice. The research presents an important opportunity to consider the impact of ADR law on expanding access to justice, reducing burdens on court systems, introducing greater flexibility and creativity to the dispute resolution process, and opening avenues for conciliatory resolutions. Through the country case studies, this research seeks to place within the context of rule of law development, the use of ADR to increase access to justice and extend more widely the protections and benefits of the rule of law for advancing administration of justice by complementing the work of the formal justice system. Its essence is that it gives an in-depth look on the current ADR development challenges facing the Arab region and its future development as a means to resolve legal disputes, in accordance with national and traditional standards.

THE LAST eight years have seen remarkable developments in the advance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in English procedural law. Many have seen its increasing attraction as a highly desirable means of reducing the burden of civil litigation on commercial organizations and public bodies alike, as well as on those of limited means who find themselves involved in civil trials for which public funding is no longer available.1 Others have seen the accelerating progress of ADR as a serious threat to the standing of the courts as expositors of English commercial law by reducing the amount of commercial litigation and thereby the rich flow of the judicial development of English law. Apart from the somewhat limited jurisdictional facility provided to judges in civil cases outside the Commercial and Admiralty courts by the CPR,2 the development of a procedure in commercial litigation giving rise to an order encouraging the use of ADR has been initiated by the judges under their inherent jurisdiction and not by legislation.3 However, the development of ADR as an increasingly important feature, not only of civil litigation procedure but also of commercial contracts, suggests that the time may be approaching quite rapidly when primary legislation will have to be introduced in the United Kingdom. The relationship between the courts and ADR has now begun to move in a direction towards a number of characteristics similar to those found in the relationship between the courts and arbitration. That is a relationship which has been governed by primary legislation for nearly 150 years. Already, the European Commission's Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law 4 has raised for formal consideration by Members States whether there should be EU legislation governing a wide spectrum of the relationship of ADR with civil litigation procedure. …

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities have been authorized by national law to either offer a solution that, if accepted by both parties, will become binding on them or to impose a solution that will become binding on them regardless of their acceptance. According to the Money Loan Court Act 2003 of Bangladesh, ADR bodies have to appoint natural people who fulfill the criteria of knowledge, independence, and impartiality to complete the entire process of ADR successfully. Therefore, ADR processes can only be run by court-ordered mediation or autonomous administrative agencies, not the financial sector. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in Bangladesh clarifies that this procedure has been provided so that “the principles of independence and impartiality have been observed.” ADR is an avenue to resolve a civil case without going to the court. There are diverse mechanisms of ADR that can resolve the issue. Undoubtedly, ADR has many advantages. However, it is pertinent to note that it has disadvantages as well. ADR has been promoted, and the concerned parties have been encouraged to use it before or during the trial. Lord Justice Woolf, a prominent jurist of the UK, solicited for ADR to avoid cost, delay and complexity in civil cases. On the other hand, ADR is not so familiar in Bangladesh. This paper aims to discover how Bangladesh promotes ADR in commercial disputes and how Bangladesh can follow the UK approach in this respect.

Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to a variety of techniques for resolving disputes by means other than litigation. ADR System seeks to provide cheap, simple, quick and accessible justice. The object behind this provision is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, save valuable time, money and permit parties to amicably come to a settlement which is lawful, is in writing and is a voluntary act on the part of the parties. Further, to reduce burden of the court. The general principle is that all matters, which can be settled in a suit, can also be settled by means of compromise. The Act of 1999 has introduced a new provision, section 89 where the court may by itself, proactively refer a dispute for ADR methods such as Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation and judicial settlement through Lok Adalat if it appears that elements of settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties to the dispute. This paper is intended to give an overview of procedural aspects as contained in Civil Procedure Code as well as of the different methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution with special reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Pvt. ltd. & ors. 2010 by briefly overviewing the history of the section, the recommendations of various law commissions with respect to the same, the relation of the section with other statutes of India and the position of the provision as it stands today. This paper tries to explicit the categories of cases which are suited for ADR processes and the cases which are not suitable for ADR processes. Then the focus shifts on analysing the conditions, advantages and weakness of ADR. This paper ends by providing some recommendations for solving the issues concerned with Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Lawyers’ alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practice is an important part of legal practice and education. In this research project, we explored the views of planning lawyers in Melbourne, Australia who were engaged in the ADR processes of mediation and compulsory conferencing. The participants interviewed endorsed the use of ADR in planning disputes and spoke of the need to adopt a collaborative approach drawing on their negotiation and communication skills. They also spoke of their role providing legal expertise in a complex jurisdiction. The lawyers reflected on the nature of planning disputes where conflict can be emotional as disputes deal with the communities’ lived experience of the built environment and the wider concerns of the planning of cities. The lawyers showed the ability to focus on the larger justice issues that affect the jurisdiction. Additionally, the study explored the lawyers’ views on their training in ADR. While some participants appreciated ADR training courses, many pointed to the benefits of learning from those lawyers experienced in planning law disputes. The research presented here suggests the need for ongoing peer support and mentorship for lawyers in the use of ADR, in addition to training, that is particular to their jurisdiction.

This chapter discusses the judge’s position in civil litigation in China viewed within two interlaced dimensions with transforming perspectives: (i) the role of adjudication in civil litigation in contrast to judicial mediation; and (ii) the judge’s role in civil adjudication in contrast to the position of the parties. It discusses the stages of transformation in civil procedure: (i) the period prior to 1982, when no code of civil procedure or formal procedure existed; (ii) the period 1982-1991, when the first code was enacted; (iii) the period 1991-2001, when the second code was enacted and judicial interpretations relating to civil procedure were released during the judicial reform of the 1990s; and (iv) the period since 2001, when judicial interpretations for redressing judicial reform and the 2007 revision to the 1991 Code were published. Outside the judicial system there are several attempts to divert cases to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Keywords:alternative dispute resolution (ADR); China; civil adjudication; civil litigation; judge’s position; judicial mediation; judicial reforms

This essay will define Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), identify the types and examples, examine the advantages and disadvantages, look at the current role within the English civil Justice System and use that as guide to draw conclusion about the desirability for increased role. Relevant authorities will be consulted and Lord Wolfes report on the desirability of ADR will be examined to determine wht the future holds for the use of ADR in the English legal sytem. Conclusion will be drawn from the discussion.

Traditional Institutions in Africa was once held in high esteem by African societies. The Institution based on the pedigree of the traditional leaders was known for the preservation of culture(ral) values maintenance of law and order and effective conflict resolution in their respective domain(s). They are trusted to give sound judgment and justice that is not legally or judicially bias. The advent the introduction of the 1976 Local Government Reform crippled the well-defined and hallowed system of Tradition in Nigeria which was using alternative dispute resolution to ensure that peace reigned in their domains.This is based on the perception that Alternative Dispute Resolution through mediation is a viable instrument for dispute settlement by the Traditional Rulers in Etinan. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques used by Traditional Rulers in Etinan Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria. The population of the study are men and women from the Local Government Area while the sample size(50 ) was purposively selected for the study. A self-structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Interviews were conducted with key informants.Journals, archival materials, and internet articles were used to affirm certain facts that traditional rulers uses Alternative and negotiation techniques for dispute resolution through mediation process. The study reveals that traditional rulers employs the use of Reconciliation, Mediation,and Litigation to resolve all forms of conflict. However , Litigation is used when conflicting parties are not satisfied with the outcome of the mediation process. It was also revealed that the use of Personal Data of Spouses and Close Kinship is another form used to resolve conflict in Etinan. The paper recommends that asides traditional rulers, mediators and the society at large should adapt the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution dispute settlement at all levels and devoid of court proceedings

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

In recent years, international environmental disputes have increased due to the escalation of cross-border environmental harms, such as pollution, climate change, and the degradation of natural resources. This research addresses the core issue of the limited effectiveness of traditional judicial mechanisms in resolving such disputes, given their procedural complexity, high costs, and lack of flexibility and technical expertise. Accordingly, the study explores the extent to which alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods—such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and conciliation—can offer effective and sustainable solutions. The aim of this study is to analyze the legal framework governing ADR mechanisms in the context of international environmental disputes and to assess their practical effectiveness. It highlights the unique features of environmental disputes and evaluates the comparative advantages of ADR over conventional judicial procedures. The research adopts a comparative legal analysis based on both Arabic and international sources and presents contemporary case studies that demonstrate the use of ADR in environmental conflict resolution. The findings indicate that ADR methods offer greater flexibility and efficiency; however, their application remains limited due to weak legal frameworks and a lack of political will. The study recommends the establishment of a permanent international environmental court or specialized ADR centers staffed with legal and technical experts to enhance the fair and effective resolution of environmental disputes.

The construction industry is a vital component of economic development in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria, characterized by its dynamic and complex nature. With the increase in construction activities, disputes are inevitable, often leading to project delays, cost overruns, and strained relationships among stakeholders. To address these challenges, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods have gained popularity as effective mechanisms for resolving disputes in the construction industry. This research paper aims to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the ADR methods used in the construction industry in Abeokuta, Ogun State. The study employs a qualitative research methodology with the aid of focus group discussion strategy employing various stakeholders, including construction professionals, legal experts, government officials, and project owners. The research investigates the types and frequency of disputes encountered in construction projects, explores the awareness and utilization of ADR methods, and evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of these methods in resolving disputes. The research highlights the need for increased awareness and education about ADR methods among construction professionals in Abeokuta. It underscores the importance of establishing an ADR framework tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the local construction industry. Furthermore, the study suggests that a more structured and standardized approach to ADR could lead to more efficient and timelier dispute resolution, ultimately benefiting the construction industry's stakeholders.

In recent times, the cost of litigation has emerged as a serious issue in construction law. This paper examines the approach adopted by the English Courts in the light of recent reforms to the civil justice system and important case law. Important legal decisions indicate a change in judicial attitudes to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which was previously thought to be unenforceable by reason of uncertainty until very recently. This paper looks at the development of so-called “ADR law” in the English courts and discusses policy issues behind the recent case of Burchell v. Bullard. The paper concludes that although the English Courts will not impose ADR on unwilling parties, draconian cost sanctions await those who unreasonably reject ADR before proceeding to trial. Guidance is given on the tricky legal issue of how to ascertain whether a refusal is reasonable or unreasonable by exploring recently decided cases. The in-depth examination of Burchell v. Bullard gives an insight into how the judiciary approach perplexing questions of reasonableness in cases where a verdict of “unreasonable rejection” can have catastrophic cost implications for litigants.