Assignment First

本篇代写-替代性纠纷解决讲了前高等法院法官迈克尔·柯比(Michael Kirby)曾表示,ADR在澳大利亚和国际环境中会有一个强劲的前景,因为它帮助人们快速获得公正(澳大利亚法律委员会2009)。这在一般法院制度中是不可能的。事实上,普通法院系统中不同程序的问题之一是如何拖延司法。因此,达成争端解决办法的另一种方法将有助于赋予人民权力,使他们更好地利用他们的时间。然而,这并不意味着ADR将取代现有的法院系统;这只是意味着,它将努力帮助改善该国现有的冲突解决进程,而不是成为一种新时尚。本篇代写文章由澳洲第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理,供大家参考阅读。

“In Australia, today, there is an enthusiastic movement towards alternative dispute resolution (ADR). For the uninitiated that means methods of dispute resolution used as alternatives to court adjudication. These processes are available in Australia both as court annexed programmes egg., the Family Court compulsory conferences and also in the private arena egg., the Australian Commercial Dispute Centre (ACDC) markets its schemes throughout Australia1” (Clarke & Davies 1991, p.81).

Michael Kirby, a former High Court Justice have stated that ADR would have a strong future in Australia and in international context because it helps people come to a swift justice scenario (Law Council of Australia 2009). This is not possible in the general court system. In fact, one of the issues with the different processes in the general court system is that of how justice is delayed. An alternative way of arriving at a dispute resolution would hence be instrumental in empowering people and giving them better use of their time. However, it does not mean that ADR would replace existing court systems; it just means that instead of being a new fad it will work to help improve existing conflict resolution processes in the country.

ADR Efficiency

In discussing the benefits of ADR, it is established that it is more cost effective precisely for the way it used to handle problems outside the court. Even with the support and advices given by lawyers to the individual entities involved in the conflicts, it is still cost effective on an overall scale. Furthermore, it is identified that it helps the people to have a more flexible form to express their grievances. In a strict legal setting, the flexibility to present grievances with depth might be missing. So, the power of representation falls singularly only on facts which are immediately related to background, some personal concerns go unheard. Now this is not the case in ADR. Furthermore, it is identified in ADR that the parties could choose to tailor the resolution of the issue. There is no hard and fast resolution here, only one that works for all the parties concerned in the dispute. Also, the proceedings could be protected in confidentiality. This is not something that could be achieved in a court proceeding. International proceedings could be very sensitive and in such contexts, sometimes protecting some information from just being shared to the public zone would be a crucial point towards achieving a conflict resolution point. Hence it is very critical that ADR should be attempted to be used at this point. Additionally, to balance the power asymmetry issues that could exist in a conventional court, in the case of ADR it would be alright to make use of extra parties of representation.