版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
WIPOAlternative
DisputeResolutionOptions
AGuideforIP
OfficesandCourts
WIPO1ADR
Arbitration
andMediation
center
i
Foreword
Conflictisaninevitablepartofdoingbusiness.AlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)processes,understoodheretoincludemediation,arbitrationandexpertdetermination,weredevelopedtoprovideeffectivejusticeforawiderangeofdisputesoutsidethecourts.
Specializinginintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,the
WIPOArbitrationand
MediationCenter
(WIPOCenter)offersADRservicesandtoolstofacilitatetime-andcost-effectivedisputeresolution.TheWIPOCenter’scaseloadcoversallareasofintellectualpropertyandtechnology,andincludesaspartieslargecompanies,smallandmedium-sizedenterprises(SMEs)andstartupsacrosssectors,artistsandinventors,research&development(R&D)centers,universities,andcopyrightmanagementorganizations.
Inleadingthedevelopmentofabalancedandeffectiveglobalintellectualpropertyecosystemtopromoteinnovationandcreativityforabetterandmoresustainablefuture,WIPOplacesparamountimportanceonitscollaborationwithIntellectualPropertyandCopyrightOffices(IPOs)aroundtheglobe.Inrecentyears,thesecollaborationshaveincreasinglyincludedanADRcomponent.BuildingonitsfirstADRcollaborationwiththeIntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingaporein2011,theWIPOCentertodaycooperateswithmorethan55IPOsaswellascourts.
Reflectingthegrowingscopeandnatureofthesecollaborativeefforts,thisGuidehighlightsWIPO’sexperienceinworkingwithIPOsandcourtstodevelopandenhancetheirADRservices,withthesharedgoalofreducingtheimpactoflegaldisputesininnovationandcreativeprocesses.
InadditiontoassessingthecurrentuseofADRtoresolveintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,thisthirdeditionoftheGuideinformsofthepracticalfeaturesoftailoredpublicADRprogramsdevelopedincollaborationwithWIPO,involvinginnovativeelementssuchasco-administrationschemes,onlinecasemanagementtools,trainingandoutreach,aswellasR&DmodelagreementsincludingADRclauses,inlinewithbroaderlegislativedevelopments.
WIPOwishestothankMs.JoyceTanforhercollaborationwiththeWIPOCenterinpreparingthisGuide,andtheKoreanIntellectualPropertyOffice(KIPO)foritsfinancialsupporttothepreparationandpromotionofthisGuideundertheWIPO-KIPOFunds-in-Trust.
MarcoM.Alemán
AssistantDirectorGeneral IPandInnovationEcosystemsSectorWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization
ii
Introduction
ThisGuideisdesignedtoprovideanoverviewofADRprocessesforintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,aswelloftheexperienceoftheWIPOCenterinthecontextofpublicADRprograms,andtopresentoptionsforinterestedIPOs,courtsandotherbodiestopromoteandintegrateADRprocessesintotheirexistingservices.Assuch,withoutpurportinginanywaytobeauthoritativeorprescriptive,thisGuideisintendedtoserveasapracticalprimerforIPOs,courtsandotherbodiesconsideringthedevelopment,implementationand/orimprovementofADRprogramsdirectedatintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes.
Tothisend,
Chapter1
offersbackgroundinformationconcerningtheearlyuseandriseofADRaroundtheworld,followedin
Chapter2
byadescriptionofpotentialadvantagesofADRforintellectualpropertydisputes.
Chapter3
explainsinmoredetailthedifferentADRproceduresthatmaybeusedinintellectualpropertydisputes,while
Chapter4
outlinessomepractical
considerationsthatmayberelevantforIPOsandcourtsthatwishtoinstitutionalizesuchADRprocedures.Forthesubstantiveandproceduralimplementationofsuchprocedures,theGuideidentifiesasacore
interfacewith
existing
elementthe
regulations.
TheAppendicestotheGuideincludeanoverviewoftheWIPOCenter’scollaborationswithIPOsandCourts,aswellasrelatedmodeldocumentsthatmayserveasillustration.
Generallyspeaking,theuseofADRinintellectualpropertydisputesinthecontextofIPOorcourtproceedingsisarelativelyrecentdevelopment.ThisthirdeditionoftheGuideaimstocapturetheWIPOCenter’sgrowingexperienceinthisarea,includingrecenteffortstosupportSMEsinthiscontext.ItishopedthattheGuidewillproveausefulreferenceforIPOsandcourtsthatwishtoexploreorfurtherdeveloptheintegrationofADRmechanismsasanoptionalalternativetotheiradministrativeorjudicialproceedings.
iii
AbouttheAuthor
JoyceA.TanisanadvocateandsolicitoroftheSupremeCourtofSingapore,aregisteredpatentagentinSingapore,panelisttotheSingaporeDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicy,appointedtothe
WIPOListofNeutrals
andmemberofthe
WIPOArbitrationandMediationCenter
AdvisoryCommittee,
associatemediatoroftheSingaporeMediationCentre,notarypublicinSingapore,commissionerforoathsinSingaporeandisadmitted(asnon-practicingmember)totheRollofSolicitorsofEnglandandWales.
Ms.Tanhasanactivecross-borderanddomesticcorporateandcommercial
practice,withparticularstrengthsintechnology,communications,mediaandintellectualproperty-relatedtransactions,includingestablishmentofnewventuresandbusinessmodels,financingtransactionsinvolvingintellectualpropertyortechnology,privateequityinvestments,strategicalliancesandjointventures,acquisition,disposition,exploitationandlicensingoftechnologyandintellectualpropertyassets.ShehasbeeninvolvedinWIPOcasesasmediatorandpartycounsel,includinginthecontextoftrademarkproceedingsbeforetheIntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingapore(IPOS).
TableofContents
Foreword i
Introduction ii
AbouttheAuthor iii
Chapter1–HistoricalBackground 1
1.1OriginsandEarlyUsesofADR 1
1.1.1Mediation 1
1.1.2Arbitration 1
1.2EarlyInstitutionalizationandRegulationofADR 2
1.2.1Mediation 2
1.2.2Arbitration 2
1.3RiseofADRaroundtheWorld 3
1.3.1GrowthofADRasanAlternativetoLitigation 3
1.3.2GlobalizationofADR 4
1.3.3GeneralTrendsandLandscape 5
1.4DevelopmentofADRinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 6
1.4.1EarlyUsesandRegulations 6
1.4.2TheWIPOCenter 7
Chapter2-AdvantagesofADRinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 9
2.1PartyAutonomy 9
2.2SingleProcess;JurisdictionalNeutrality 9
2.3IndependentSpecializedExpertise 10
2.4Simplicity;Flexibility 10
2.5TimeSavings 11
2.6CostSavings 12
2.7Confidentiality 12
2.8Finality 12
2.9Enforceability 13
2.10DiverseSolutions 13
2.11SpecificAdvantagesforIPOs 14
Chapter3-ADRProceduresUsedinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 15
3.1GeneralTrendsandLandscape 15
3.2ApproachestoADR 16
3.2.1Assistance-Based 16
3.2.2Recommendation-Based 16
3.2.3Adjudication-Based 16
3.3Mediation 17
3.3.1Introduction 17
3.3.2MediationAgreement 17
3.3.3AppointmentandRoleofMediator 18
3.3.4ConductofMediation 19
3.3.5EnforcementofMediationSettlement 20
3.3.6AdministrationofMediation 20
3.3.7ModeofSubmissiontoMediation 22
3.4ExpertDetermination 23
3.4.1Introduction 23
3.4.2ExpertDeterminationAgreement 24
3.4.3AppointmentandRoleofExpert 25
3.4.4ConductofExpertDetermination 25
3.4.5AdministrationofExpertDetermination 25
3.4.6SubmissiontoExpertDeterminationProceedingsatIPOs 26
3.5Arbitration 26
3.5.1Introduction 26
3.5.2ArbitrationAgreement 27
3.5.3LegalFrameworkofArbitration 27
3.5.4ArbitrationRules 28
3.5.5AppointmentandRoleofArbitralTribunal 29
3.5.6ConductoftheArbitration 29
3.5.7ArbitralAwards 30
3.5.8AdministrationofArbitration 31
3.5.9ModeofSubmissiontoArbitration 31
Chapter4-InstitutionalizingADRforIntellectualPropertyDisputes 33
4.1Introduction 33
4.2OpportunityforADR 33
4.3InterfacewithIPO,CourtorOtherProceedings 36
4.4ChoiceofADRProcess 37
4.5SubmissiontoADRProcess 37
4.6Finance 38
4.6.1GovernmentFunding 38
4.6.2AdministrativeFees 38
4.6.3PractitionerFees 39
4.7“Buy-in” 39
4.7.1Process 39
4.7.2RolesofKeyPlayers 40
4.8ConsultationandFeedback 41
4.9Outreach 42
4.10ADRPractitioners 43
4.10.1Training 43
4.10.2QualityStandards 43
4.10.3Availability 44
4.11LegalFramework 44
4.11.1LegalFrameworkandSystem 45
4.11.2EnablingLawsandRegulations 45
4.12AdministrativeInfrastructure 46
4.13PublicConfidence 46
4.13.1ImpartialityandIndependenceofNeutrals 46
4.13.2ConfidentialityofInformation 47
4.13.3TransparencyofProceeding 47
4.13.4RealizationofAdvantages 47
4.14PeriodicReview 48
AppendixA-WIPOCenterCollaborationwithIPOsandCourts 49
A.1Overview 49
A.2ExamplesofWIPOCenterCollaborationwithIPOffices 59
A.2.1RaisingAwarenessofADROptions 59
A.2.1.1IPAustralia 59
A.2.1.2HungarianIntellectualPropertyOffice(HIPO) 60
A.2.1.3RomanianCopyrightOffice(ORDA) 61
A.2.1.4IntellectualPropertyOfficeoftheRepublicofSerbia 62
A.2.1.5WIPOADRforSMEs 63
A.2.1.6WIPOTechnologyandInnovationSupportCenter
Program(TISC) 64
A.2.2CaseAdministration 65
A.2.2.1SuperintendenceofIndustryandCommerce(SIC) 65
A.2.2.2NationalInstituteofCopyrightofMexico(INDAUTOR) 66
A.2.2.3OfficeofIndustrialandCommercialPropertyofMorocco
(OMPIC) 67
A.2.2.4NigerianCopyrightCommission(NCC) 68
A.2.2.5IntellectualPropertyOfficeofthePhilippines(IPOPHL) 69
A.2.2.6PatentOfficeoftheRepublicofPoland(PPO) 71
A.2.2.7MinistryofCulture,SportsandTourism(MCST)ofthe
RepublicofKorea 73
A.2.2.8IntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingapore(IPOS) 74
A.2.2.9UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO) 76
A.2.3ADROptionsinR&DModelAgreements 77
A.2.3.1SpanishPatentandTrademarkOffice(OEPM) 77
A.3ExamplesofWIPOCenterCourtsCollaboration 78
A.3.1SupremePeople’sCourtofChina(SPC)andShanghaiHighPeople’s
CourtofChina 78
A.3.2MunichRegionalCourt 79
AppendixB-WIPOCenterReferences 81
B.1WIPOADRRules 81
B.2WIPOScheduleofFeesandCosts 81
B.2.1Mediation 81
B.2.2ExpeditedArbitrationandArbitration 82
B.2.3ExpertDetermination 82
B.3ModelWIPOADRClausesandAgreements 83
B.3.1WIPOClauseGenerator 84
B.3.2UnilateralRequestforWIPOMediation 85
B.4WIPOOnlineCaseAdministrationTools 86
B.5SpecializedWIPOADRServicesforSpecificSectors 87
1
Chapter1–HistoricalBackground
1.1OriginsandEarlyUsesofADR
1.1.1Mediation
Mediationisaninformalprocedureinwhichaneutralintermediary,themediator,assiststhepartiesinreachingasettlementoftheirdispute,basedontheirrespectiveinterests,asfurtherexplainedin
Chapter3.3.
Ithasitsrootsintraditionalcommunitypracticesfoundincountriesaroundtheworld.Theseearlymediationpracticesgenerallyreliedonarespectedcommunityleader,whowouldprovideguidancebasedoncommunityvaluesandpersuadethedisputingpartiestoamicablyresolvetheirdifferences.
1
TraditionalmediationpracticeshavebeendocumentedinAlbania,
2
Burundi,
3
China,
4
Japan,
5
thePhilippines,theRepublicofKoreaandSingapore.
6
MediationalsocontributedtothedevelopmentoflegalsystemsinRomeandAnglo-SaxonEngland.InancientRome,aversionofjudicialmediationappearstohavebeenthepreferredmeansofresolvingcivildisputes;thisapproachhadanimportantinfluenceoncivilprocedureincontinentalEurope,particularlyinAustria,GermanyandSwitzerland.
7
InAnglo-SaxonEngland,judgesandarbitratorsencouragedpartiestonegotiatesettlementagreementsafterissuingtheirjudgmentonthemerits,butbeforethejudgmentwasprocedurallyfinalized.Mediationwasusedintheseearlylegalsystemstopreserveongoingrelationshipsbetweenlitigants,andtoeffectpeacefulandenduringresolutionstodisputes.
8
1.1.2Arbitration
Arbitration,explainedinmoredetailin
Chapter3.5
,isaprocedureinwhichthepartiessubmittheirdisputetooneormorechosenarbitrators,forabindingandfinaldecision(award)basedontheparties’respectiverightsandobligations.Arbitrationdevelopedoutoftheadjudicativeprocessusedbymerchantstoregulatetheirdisputes.
9
Merchantswouldbringtheirdisputesbeforeatribunaloffellowmerchants,whichwouldrenderadecisionbasedoncustomary
1Ho-BengChia,JooEngLee-PartridgeandChee-LeongChong,‘Traditionalmediationpractices:Arewethrowingthebabyoutwiththebathwater?’(2004)Vol.21ConflictResolutionQuaterly451,453-455.
2AyseBetulCelikandAlmaShkreli,‘AnAnalysisofReconciliatoryMediationinNorthernAlbania:TheRoleofCustomaryMediators’(2010)62Europe-AsiaStudies885.
3UNESCO,‘WomenandPeaceinAfrica:Casestudiesontraditionalconflictresolutionpractices’(2003)
/images/0013/001332/133274e.pdf.
4JoelLeeandTehHweeHweeeds,‘AnAsianPerspectiveonMediation’(AcademyPublishing2009)4.
5RondaRobertsCallisterandJamesAWall,‘JapaneseCommunityandOrganizationalMediation’(1997)
Vol.41,TheJournalofConflictResolution,311,313.
6JoelLeeandTehHweeHweeeds,ibid.4,4.
7ChristianBühring-Uhle,LarsKirchhoffandGabrieleScherer,‘ArbitrationandMediationinInternationalBusiness’(KluwerLawInternational2006)177.
8ValerieASanchez,‘TowardsaHistoryofADR:TheDisputeProcessingContinuuminAnglo-SaxonEnglandandToday’(1996)Vol.11TheOhioStateJournalonDisputeResolution1,3,
/bitstream/handle/1811/79734/OSJDR_V11N1_001.pdf?sequence=1.
9EdwardManson,TheCityofLondonChamberofArbitration(1893)9LQR86,87.
2
commercialpractices.Althoughtheseprivatesystemsofadjudicationdidnotfeatureformallegalprocesses,theywereconsideredascrediblesourcesofcommercialjustice.
10
Earlyarbitrationpracticeshavebeendocumentedinpre-IslamicArabiaandinmedievalWesternEurope.
11
MaritimearbitrationwaspracticedincountriesalongtheWesternandAtlanticcoastsofEuropeinaround1200,
12
andrecordsofmaritimearbitrationsdatingbackto1229havebeenfoundinVenice.
13
Arbitrationbecameapopularalternativetolitigationformerchantsbecauseitwasasystemofself-regulationthatprovidedquick,economicalandinformeddecisions.
14
1.2EarlyInstitutionalizationandRegulationofADR
1.2.1Mediation
IncountriessuchasAustralia,
15
NewZealand
16
andtheUnitedStates,
17
mediationservicesandregulationswereestablishedintheearly20thcenturytoaddresslabordisputes.Labordisputesinthelate19thand20thcenturieswereoftencostly,disruptiveandevenviolent.Inresponse,governmentauthoritiesestablishedlaborconciliationservicesandlaws,whichenabledtheextensiveuseofmediationbetweenlaborunionsandemployers.Theselaborconciliationservicesandlawsweresuccessfulbecausetheyprovidedthenecessaryadministrativeframeworktoaddresslabordisputesswiftlyandpeacefullyonahithertounimaginedscale.
18
1.2.2Arbitration
Arbitrationinstitutionsandregulationswerefirstformalizedinthe18thand19thcenturiestopromoteandfacilitatetheuseofarbitration.Broadlyspeaking,arbitrationinstitutionsweremoresuccessfulwhenarbitrationlawsthatfacilitatedtheenforcementofarbitrationagreementsandawardswerealreadyinplace.
19
Forexample,arbitrationonlybegantothriveintheUnitedStatesaftertheUnitedStatesArbitrationActwasenactedin1925,eventhougharbitrationinstitutionshadbeenestablishedasearlyasin1768.
20
IntheUnitedKingdom,arbitrationlegislationwasfirstenactedin1698andculminatedintheArbitrationActof1889.
10CharlesSHaightJr,‘MaritimeArbitrationTheAmericanExperience’inACollectionoftheCedricBarclayLectures:ICMAX-ICMAXV(SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCenter2006).
11AlanRedfern,MHunteret.al.,‘LawandPracticeofInternationalCommercialArbitration’(4thed,Sweet&Maxwell2004)para1-04.
12WilliamTetley,‘MarineCargoClaims’(4thed,ÉditionsYvonBlais2009)1417.
13FabrizioMarrella,‘UnityandDiversityinInternationalArbitration:TheCaseofMaritimeArbitration’(2005)AmericanUniversityInternationalLawReview,Vol20,1055,1058
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=auilr.
14EarlSWolaver,‘TheHistoricalBackgroundofCommercialArbitration’(1934)83UPaLRev132,144.15OdeRFoenander,‘TheNewConciliationandArbitrationActinAustralia’(1929)19Int’lLabRev151.
16JudyDellandPeterFranks,‘MediationandCollectiveBargaininginNewZealand’(MinistryofBusiness,Innovation&Employment,2009).
17EdgarLWarren,‘TheConciliationService:V-JDaytoTaft-Hartley’(1948)1ILRReview351.
18MichaelWallin,‘LabourAdministration:OriginsandDevelopment’(1969)100Int’lLabRev51,72.19FrankDEmerson,‘HistoryofArbitrationPracticeandLaw’(1970)19ClevStLR155,158-159.
20CharlesSHaightJr,‘MaritimeArbitrationTheAmericanExperience’inACollectionoftheCedricBarclayLectures:ICMAX-ICMAXV(SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCenter2006).
3
Arbitrationprosperedundertheauspicesofthislegislativeregime,
21
eventhougharbitrationinstitutionswerenotestablisheduntil1892.
22
Whileenablinglawsarecriticaltothedevelopmentofarbitration,arbitrationinstitutionscanthemselvesplayanimportantroleintheenactmentandpromotionoftheselaws.In1923,theInternationalCourtofArbitrationoftheInternationalChamberofCommercewasestablishedtoprovideanarbitrationinstitutionwithasufficiently“international”characterforthefledglinginternationalarbitrationindustry.
23
Subsequently,theInternationalCourtofArbitrationplayedamajorroleinthepromulgationofthe1958ConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(NewYorkConvention),whichiswidelyconsideredasthemostimportantmultilateraltreatyoninternationalarbitration.
24
1.3RiseofADRaroundtheWorld
1.3.1GrowthofADRasanAlternativetoLitigation
TheADR‘boom’inthe1970sand1980swasspurredinlargepartbyarisingdissatisfactionwithlitigation.
25
Asidefrombeingexorbitant,time-consumingandacrimonious,itwasevidentthatlitigationcouldalsobeanenormousgamble.
26
Further,therewasanapprehension,particularlyamongsomeacademicsandlegalpractitionersoftheadventofa“litigationexplosion”,whereoverly-litigioussocietieswouldoverwhelmcourtswithunnecessaryandcostlylawsuits.
27
TheseconcernsledProfessorFrankSandertodeveloptheconceptofthe“multi-doorcourthouse”,whichhepresentedatthe1976PoundConference.The“multi-doorcourthouse”wouldprovidearangeofdisputeresolutionservicesandcourtofficialswouldreferpartiestothemostappropriateprocessfortheircase.Mediationandarbitrationwouldplaykeyrolesinthe“multi-doorcourthouse”asalternativestolitigation.
28
ProfessorSander’spresentationiswidelyregardedasa“bigbang”momentintheglobalADRmovementforthreereasons.Firstly,itpopularizedtheideathatdisputesshouldbechanneledintothemostappropriatedisputeresolutionmechanism.Secondly,itpromotedtheadvantagesofalternativestolitigation,suchasmediationandarbitration.
29
Finally,the“multi-doorcourthouse”provedtobeaneffectivemechanismforfacilitatingaccesstoADRservicesandtraditionalcourtprocesses.FollowingthePoundConference,“multi-doorcourthouses”were
21SidneyPSimpson,‘SpecificEnforcementofArbitrationContracts’(1934)83UPaLRev160,165,
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8695&context=penn_law_review.
22TheLondonCourtofInternationalArbitrationwasinauguratedastheCityofLondonChamberof
Arbitrationin1892.SeeEdwardManson,‘TheCityofLondonChamberofArbitration’(1893)9LQR86.
23EmmanuelGaillard,BertholdGoldmanandJohnSavage,‘Fouchard,Gaillard,GoldmanonInternational
CommercialArbitration’(KluwerLawInternational1999)174.
24AlanRedfern,MHunteret.al.,ibid.11,1-05.
25BillMaurer,‘TheDisunityofFinance:AlternativePracticestoWesternFinance’inKarinKnorrCetinaandAlexPreda(eds)TheOxfordHandbookoftheSociologyofFinance(OxfordUniversityPress2012)413.
26KevinMLemley,‘I’llMakeHimAnOfferHeCan’tRefuse:AProposedModelForAlternativeDisputeResolutioninIntellectualPropertyDisputes’(2004)37AkronLRev287,311-312,
/dotAsset/727495.pdf.
27MarcGalanter,‘TheDayAftertheLitigationExplosion’(1986)46MdLRev3,5,
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2633&context=mlr.
28FrankEASander,‘VarietiesofDisputeProcessing’inALeoLevinandRussellRWheeler(eds),ThePoundConference:PerspectivesonJusticeintheFuture(WestGroup1979)65,83.
29MichaelLMoffitt,‘BeforetheBigBang:TheMakingofanADRPioneer’(2006)22NegotiationJ435.
4
implementedintheUnitedStates,
30
andtheirsuccessspurredtheestablishmentofsimilarinitiativesinforexampleAustralia,
31
Canada,
32
theNetherlands,
33
Nigeria
34
andSingapore.
35
1.3.2GlobalizationofADR
Sincethe1980s,ADRhasachievedanunprecedentedprominenceintheinternationalcommunity,andADRprogramshaveproliferatedonaglobalscale.
36
TheattractiveforceofADRcanbeattributedtothesimplefactthatithassomethingforeveryone:anadditionalchannelfortheprovisionofaccesstojustice,therebyofferingadministrativereliefforthecourtsandpublicagencies;apotentiallyquick,inexpensiveandflexibleavenuetoresolvedisputesforthedisputants;andagrowthindustryandanincreasinglyprofitablebusinessforADRpractitionersandinstitutions.
Broadlyspeaking,ADRprogramshavebeendevelopedbycourtsandlegalagenciestocomplementandsupportlegalprocesses.
37
BychannelingappropriatedisputesintoADRprocesses,“multi-doorcourthouses”reducebacklog,acceleratecasedispositionandfacilitateaccesstojusticebyreducingeconomicandproceduralobstaclestoresolvingdisputes.
38
Court-connectedADRprogramsalsoplacecourtsinabetterpositiontoaddressdisputesthatareill-suitedtoadversariallitigation.
39
Forexample,familycourtswereearlyadoptersofmediationprogramsbecauseoftheemotionalandinterpersonalcharacteristicsoffamilydisputes.
40
Beyondjudicialefforts,thegrowthofADRhasbeendrivenbyastrongdemandfromtheinternationalbusinesscommunity.ADRprocessesareappropriateforbusinessesbecausetheycanprovidetimeandcostsavings,aswellascommerciallyusefuloutcomes:arbitration
30‘Transcript:ADialogueBetweenProfessorsFrankSanderandMarianaHernandezCrespo’(2008)5UStThomasLJ665,673,
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=ustlj.
31RobertFrench,‘PerspectivesonCourtAnnexedAlternativeDisputeResolution’(HighCourtofAustralia¸
July27,2009)
.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-
justices/frenchcj/frenchcj27july09.pdf.
32TrevorCWFarrow,‘CivilJustice,PrivatizationandDemocracy’(UniversityofTorontoPress2014)73.
33AnnieJdeRooandRobertWJagtenberg,‘TheDutchLandscapeofCourt-EncouragedMediation’in
NadjaMarieAlexander(eds),GlobalTrendsinMediation(KluwerLawInternational2006)288.
34OyeniyiAjigboye,‘TheConceptofMulti-DoorCourthouseinNigeria:RethinkingFrankSander’sConcept’(SocialScienceResearchNetwork,November16,2014)
/profile/Ajigboye_Oyeniyi/publication/268333752_The_ConceptofMulti-
Door_Courthouse_in_Nigeria_Rethinking_Frank_Sander’s_Concept/links/54691b7d0cf2397f782d6d9c/Th
e-Concept-of-Multi-Door-Courthouse-in-Nigeria-Rethinking-Frank-Sanders-Concept.
35MarvinBay,ShobaNairandAsanthiMendi‘TheIntegrationofAlternativeDisputeResolutionWithintheSubordinateCourts’AdjudicationProcess’(2004)16SAcLJ501.
36AnthonyWanis-St.John,‘ImplementingADRinTransitioningStates:LessonsLearnedfromPractice’
(2000)5Harv.NegotiationL.Rev.339,340,
/wp-
content/uploads/sites/22/2012/04/IMPLEMENTING_ADR_IN_TRANSITIONING_STATES_LESSONS_LE
ARNED_FROM_PRACTICE.doc.
37LarryRayandAnneLClare,‘TheMulti-DoorCourthouseIdea-BuildingtheCourthouseoftheFutureToday’(1985)1OhioStJonDispResol7,12.
38ScottBrown,Christin
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 农村水路客运涨价补贴资金建设类项目计划申报表
- 2024年婚前房产协议参考范文(2篇)
- 2024年经营权转让合同官方版(三篇)
- 2024年股权转让协议标准模板(5篇)
- 2024年委托理财合同标准范本(二篇)
- 2024年道路勘察设计合同(二篇)
- 2024年加工贸易合同简单版(三篇)
- 2024年加工承揽合同样本(2篇)
- 2024年市场租赁合同经典版(2篇)
- 《七颗钻石》第二课时课件
- 营养餐汇报材料
- T∕CHTS 10042-2021 小客车专用高速公路工程技术指南
- “小小银行家”少儿财商培养PPT课件
- 项目部临时用工管理办法
- 阴影透视习题集答案
- Algebra2中英版对照目录
- 心力衰竭(英文) ppt课件
- 钢管、钢坯堆码作业安全规定.doc
- 底栏栅坝水力学计算
- 新版形高与材积速查表
- 村民委员会印章管理规定
评论
0/150
提交评论