The Argument for Choosing State's Judicial System or a "Private" Outsourced Resolution of Disputes: a Practising Attorney's Point of View

被引:0
作者
Sladic, Jorg [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Law Off Sladic Zemljak, Kersnikova 7, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
[2] Univ Maribor, Fac Law, Mladinska Ulica 9, SLO-2000 Maribor, Slovenia
来源
LEXONOMICA | 2018年 / 10卷 / 01期
关键词
ADR; arbitration; mediation; outsourced mediation; court-connected mediation; choice of ADR; State as party in litigation and ADR;
D O I
10.18690/lexonomica.10.1.1-20.2018
中图分类号
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
Terms such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are nowadays standard terms in any classroom textbook on civil procedure. Legal scholars enumerated and assessed in depth the advantages and disadvantages of any type of outsourced dispute resolution. However, a number of legal writers still fail to enumerate the exact differences in course of events and all of the trade-offs that a party will have when deciding to resolve the dispute using an outsourced dispute resolution. Clearly the costs, the celerity and the flexibility are important issues. However, the decision is not influenced solely by legal arguments. This paper will mention some typical Slovenian issues in an assessment of the choice of dispute resolution. If parties want to continue to remain in good terms after the dispute, then an outsourced dispute resolution is highly recommended. Judicial rulings are to binary; one party wins, one loses.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 20
页数:20
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Betetto N, 2009, PRAVDNI POSTOPEK ZAK, P17
  • [2] Calkins Richard M., 2011, CARDOZO J CONFLICT R, V13, P1
  • [3] de Roo A, 2012, TRUTH EFFICIENCY CIV, P27
  • [4] Duricin B, 2013, DJELOTVORNA PRAVNA Z, P605
  • [5] Eiseman N.M, 2013, CARDOZO J CONFLICT R, V14, P683
  • [6] Jovin-Hrastnik B, 2009, PODJETJE DELO, V35, P1123
  • [7] Juhart J, 1962, CIVILNO IZVRSILNO PR
  • [8] Jung F, 2014, Z EUROPARECHTLICHE S, V17, P173
  • [9] Knezevic G, 2012, ZBORNIK PRAVNOG FAKU, V62, P417
  • [10] Langbein JH., 2012, TRUTH EFFICACY CIVIL, P119