The system of Alternative Dispute Resolution, commonly known as ADR, comprises multiple informal processes. Traditional processes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration are primary processes within the system of ADR. The elements of the primary processes have been combined with one another or with those of public process to form hybrid ADR processes original only to the system of ADR. These hybrid processes are: rent-a-judge, the mini-trial, the summary jury trial, neutral evaluation and mediation/arbitration. Under the auspices of ADR, derivative processes have also been developed, such as expedited arbitration, documents-only arbitration, final-offer arbitration and quality arbitration. Each process is distinct and separate, having its own unique form, function and method of transforming a dispute. Outwardly, this represents a diverse collection of disjunctive processes. Yet an introspective analysis shows that there is an innate centrality that originates in core principles that bind individual processes to each other and to a unified body of theory. These foundational principles of ADR are replicated in each of its processes. In these terms, ADR is therefore conceptualised as a pluralistic system of dispute resolution that consists of autonomous and individual systems of process that conform to a central body of general theory and consensual principles. As a method of extracting the fundamental principles of ADR, the discontinuities and continuities between the theory and principles of civil procedure, as a unitary system .of procedure, and ADR processes are explored. However, in its conclusions, the thesis rejects the premises of a unitary system of procedure as forming the basis for the theory and principles of ADR. Instead, the contrary notion is advanced that ADR is an independent system of dispute resolution which is based on a theory of processual pluralism and supported by cogent processual principles. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.D.

No description available.

Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in, and utilisation of, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques to resolve environmental conflicts in western societies. ADR was incorporated into one of New Zealand's main environmental statutes, the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA). Under s.268 of the RMA the Environment Court (the Court) may, if the parties agree, conduct mediation in order to facilitate settlement of resource management disputes. The RMA, which has now been in operation for ten years, gives no guidance as to the way in which mediation is to be conducted. The Court has developed procedures and processes for administering and conducting mediation. This study critically evaluates the practice of Court assisted mediation of environmental disputes under the RMA. A literature review and interviews with stakeholder groups are used in this evaluation. The study shows that mediation generates benefits for the Court and participants. It also identifies limitations with the current mediation procedures and processes. These may impact the effectiveness of participants in mediation, their satisfaction with, and support for, the mediated settlement and with the environmental outcomes. The study recommends a series of guidelines be prepared on the functions and administrative procedures of the Court and on the mediation process promoted by the Court. Further research is also recommended. It is considered that these recommendations, if implemented, will enhance the process for participants, ensure more equitable and consistent environmental outcomes, in terms of present and future generations, and retain public confidence in the mediation process.

Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in, and utilisation of, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques to resolve environmental conflicts in western societies. ADR was incorporated into one of New Zealand's main environmental statutes, the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA). Under s.268 of the RMA the Environment Court (the Court) may, if the parties agree, conduct mediation in order to facilitate settlement of resource management disputes. The RMA, which has now been in operation for ten years, gives no guidance as to the way in which mediation is to be conducted. The Court has developed procedures and processes for administering and conducting mediation. This study critically evaluates the practice of Court assisted mediation of environmental disputes under the RMA. A literature review and interviews with stakeholder groups are used in this evaluation. The study shows that mediation generates benefits for the Court and participants. It also identifies limitations with the current mediation procedures and processes. These may impact the effectiveness of participants in mediation, their satisfaction with, and support for, the mediated settlement and with the environmental outcomes. The study recommends a series of guidelines be prepared on the functions and administrative procedures of the Court and on the mediation process promoted by the Court. Further research is also recommended. It is considered that these recommendations, if implemented, will enhance the process for participants, ensure more equitable and consistent environmental outcomes, in terms of present and future generations, and retain public confidence in the mediation process.

The system of Alternative Dispute Resolution, commonly known as ADR, comprises multiple informal processes. Traditional processes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration are primary processes within the system of ADR. The elements of the primary processes have been combined with one another or with those of public process to form hybrid ADR processes original only to the system of ADR. These hybrid processes are: rent-a-judge, the mini-trial, the summary jury trial, neutral evaluation and mediation/arbitration. Under the auspices of ADR, derivative processes have also been developed, such as expedited arbitration, documents-only arbitration, final-offer arbitration and quality arbitration. Each process is distinct and separate, having its own unique form, function and method of transforming a dispute. Outwardly, this represents a diverse collection of disjunctive processes. Yet an introspective analysis shows that there is an innate centrality that originates in core principles that bind individual processes to each other and to a unified body of theory. These foundational principles of ADR are replicated in each of its processes. In these terms, ADR is therefore conceptualised as a pluralistic system of dispute resolution that consists of autonomous and individual systems of process that conform to a central body of general theory and consensual principles. As a method of extracting the fundamental principles of ADR, the discontinuities and continuities between the theory and principles of civil procedure, as a unitary system .of procedure, and ADR processes are explored. However, in its conclusions, the thesis rejects the premises of a unitary system of procedure as forming the basis for the theory and principles of ADR. Instead, the contrary notion is advanced that ADR is an independent system of dispute resolution which is based on a theory of processual pluralism and supported by cogent processual principles. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Les processus de résolution amiable des différends – conciliation, médiation, procédure participative ou droit collaboratif – présentent une unité d’objectif. Leur mise en œuvre permet une tentative de conclusion d’un accord amiable : un contrat consacrant la solution du différend construite par les parties. Sans se départir d’une approche procédurale, cette étude propose une analyse contractuelle de la résolution amiable des différends. Au-delà d’une procéduralisation de la formation de l’accord amiable, le droit commun des contrats sert en effet de manière unitaire les négociations et la conclusion de l’accord amiable. Ce dernier présente néanmoins une certaine diversité au regard des qualifications contractuelles qu’il peut revêtir. Si le contrat de transaction apparaît comme un référent à l’accord amiable, tout accord amiable ne consiste pas nécessairement en une transaction. Mais au-delà du jeu des qualifications possibles, le droit commun des contrats fédère les conditions de validité et les forces de l’accord amiable. Une unité fondamentale des accords amiables se révèle ainsi, garantissant la résolution effective des différends / The amicable settlement process - conciliation, mediation, collaborative procedure or law - present the same aim. Every amicable settlement process permits the conclusion of an amicable agreement: a contract consecrating the solution built by the parties. Without distracting from procedural approach, this study offers a contractual analysis of the amicable dispute resolution. Beyond a proceduralisation of the negotiation and the amicable settlement formation, it is the general law of contract that insure a support to the amicable settlement process. However, the amicable settlement presents some diversity due to peripheral qualifications. If the transaction contract is a reference to the amicable settlement, every amicable settlement is not necessarily a transaction. Beyong the choice of qualifications, the general contract law unites the validity conditions and the forces of the amicable settlement. A fundamental unity of amicable settlements reveals, safeguarded the effective dispute resolution

Cette thèse doctorale a pour objet l’étude et en particulier l’influence qu’a pu avoir, et qu’ont toujours, les puissances européennes sur la résolution des conflits en Afrique de l’Ouest et ainsi déterminer s'il existe une culture juridique « africaine ». / This thesis is devoted to the study the influence of the European powers on past and present dispute resolution in West African legal systems and thereby to determine whether an "African legal culture" exists.

Traditionnellement, le droit des entreprises en difficulté recourt à l’autorité judiciaire pour la mise en oeuvre de ses dispositions et la réalisation de ses finalités. Toutefois, considérant l’évolution de ce droit, le traitement « tout judiciaire » des difficultés des entreprises est remis en cause. En effet, il ne s’agit plus seulement de sanctionner, mais davantage de prévenir les difficultés et de sauvegarder les entreprises, ce qui dénature l’office juridictionnel. De plus, les commerçants ne sont plus les seuls concernés par ce droit, ce qui aboutit à l’éclatement de la compétence juridictionnelle. Il y aurait lieu d’envisager d’autres modes de traitement. Prenant en compte l’existence d’un traitement administratif, connu du surendettement, mais, aussi, des entreprises, et favorisant le règlement alternatif des difficultés, une autre voie peut être proposée pour la prise en charge de l’impossibilité économique d’exécuter. La légitimité du juge, dont les interventions seraient recentrées et la compétence spécialisée, en ressortirait renforcée pour le traitement des entreprises en difficulté. / Traditionally, insolvency law appeals to the judicial authority to apply its provisions and to carry out its aims. However, regarding the evolution of this law, the exclusive judicial treatment of the difficulties is challenged. Indeed, it is no longer only to punish but more to prevent difficulties and safeguard businesses, which distorts the judicial office of the judge. In addition, traders are not the only ones affected by this law, leading to the outbreak of jurisdiction. Subsequently, there is a need to consider other modes of treatment. Taking into account the existence of an administrative process, known by over-indebtedness, but also by businesses, and promoting alternative dispute resolution of difficulties, another path can be proposed for the management of the economic impossibility of performance. The legitimacy of the judge, whose interventions would be refocused and skills specialised, would be strengthened in relation to the treatment of undertakings facing difficulties