Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly n...
Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.
Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.
왜냐하면, 조정-중재제도는 그 기원단계에서의 주도적 동인과 발전단계에서의 동인이 다르기 때문이다. 조정-중재제도는 20세기 전반, 미국의 산업현장에서 노사분쟁을 해결하는 과정에서 발생한 데에 그 제도적 기원을 두고 있다. 그러나 20세기 후반 들어, 조정-중재제도가 분쟁현장에서 본격적으로 활용되고, 학계에서 활발하게 논의되면서 이룩한 발전 상황은, 기원단계와는 전혀 다른 환경에서 출발하고 있다.
중국에서 활용하는 '중재절차 중의 조정' 방식은 어떻게 진행되는 방식인가?
중국에서 활용되는 방식은 ‛중재절차 중의 조정’방식이다. 즉 중재절차가 진행되는 도중에, 당사자들의 조정 요청이 있거나 중재판정부의 조정 제의에 따라서 조정을 진행하는 방식이다.61) 1994년에 제정된 중국 중재법에는 제51조와 제52조에 이와 관련된 조항을 삽입하여, “당사자들이 조정절차에 동의하는 경우, 중재판정부는 조정을 하여야 하며, 중재판정부가 작성한 조정조서와 중재판정문은 동일한 법적 효력이 있다.
'중재'의 특징은 무엇인가?
6) 그러한 원인으로는 중재 자체가 본래의 기능을 상실하였다는 지적이 나오고 있기 때문이다. 원래 중재는 소송제도에 비하여 신속하고, 비용이 적게 들고, 우의적 해결이 그 특징이라고 할 수 있다. 즉 소송제도7)에 비하여, 증거수집절차 등을 간략하게 하는 등, 심리절차를 융통성있게 함으로써 신속하게 심리를 종결할 수 있는 장점이 있었다. 그리고 3심제가 아니고 단심제로 모든 절차가 종결되고 단심제 내에서도 증거절차가 복잡하지 않은 관계로 인하여, 시간이 절약되고 그만큼 비용을 절감함으로써, 경제성 역시 보장된다고 할 것이다. 또한 소송제도가 결국 대립적 구도 하에서 이루어지기 때문에, 서로 우의적 해결이 어려운 반면에 원래 중재제도는 상인들 간에 형성된 제도로서 서로 간 관계를 지속시키는 편이 관계를 일회적으로 끝내는 것보다 나은 면이 있다.8) 그러나 이러한 중재의 탄력적 특성은 현재 도전받고 있다.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.