Dispute Settlement System Of Litigation

To settle disputes and conflicts arised in human society, people usually turn to the court for judicial remedy. In recent years, however, people around the world have caught up another trend called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), throngh which people seek mediation by administrative organs or non-governmental arbitration bodies. This paper observes Alternative Dispute Resolution system. It consists of three parts besides the conclusion.Part I begins with a brief account of how ADR works in. U.S.A, Germany and Australia, etc. Then, based on study of various Japanese theories, the author discusses the reason why ADR system has attracted so much attention in recent years. Doing away with the time, expenses and procedures incurred in litigation, ADR settles disputes in an easier, faster and cheaper way. It can also be applied under circumstances where interests of both parties can be adjusted in a flexible way instead of being strictly confined within laws and regulations. How about its relationship with traditional litigation? Japanese scholars' ideas fall into following categories: A. Court system is the common practice while ADR system is subordinate. B. Court system and ADR system are only a matter of free choice by litigants involved in a dispute. C. Court system and ADR system are interrelated and interacted. The popularity of ADR should not be the result of a court proceeding which is hard to have access to and make use of litigants should be entitled to choose the most appropriate process in accordance with the characteristics and maturity of different conflicts.Part II discusses the characteristics and effects of mediation. The Civil Procedure Law of Taiwan only stipulates that mediation is of the same effect as conciliation within litigation. This has led to much discussion among scholars. This part compares the characteristics of several Alternative Dispute Resolutions in our country. The characteristic is that litigants can fallow rulings made by court-sponsored mediation inan independent, secretive and peaceful way. This par* then discurses the effect of conclusion in form, effect of execution, effect of formation and effect of conclusion in substance respectively. The effect of conclusion in from means that when all the litigants agree upon the mediation paper. It'll have the same effect as a conclusive ruling which denies appeal. Here, mediation papers take the place of an appeal which ensures recognition of the effect of the contents. The effect of execution means that when a created mediation embodies performance of one party to the other and when the party doesn't' perform his obligations by the mediation paper, the other party is entitled to apply to the court for compulsory execution under the name of the created mediation. The effect of formation: some specific private conflicts of legal relations isn't suitable for settlement by litigants themselves. Furthermore, in consideration of the necessity of making the alteration of legal relationship have the effect to the world, settlement of these specific flicts only admits "action of formation."Part III compares a variety of civil mediation systems of the Mainland with those of Taiwan. It first delves into people's mediation system, court mediation and other mediation systems in the Mainland. Then the author makes an analytical comparison with village-level, town-level, city-level mediation, court mediation and conciliation system in Taiwan. The author looks into the trend of development and its benefits and shortcomings, aiming at facilitating the settlement of labor disputes, commercial arbitration, civil litigation and public nuisance disputes, etc.