• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.55-87
• /
• 2011

This paper is to illustrate a variety of court-annexed ADR programs and vindicate its implications of court-annexed ADR in United States. It has been almost three decades since Frank Sender articulated his vision of the multi-door courthouse. The court-annexed ADR originated from the concept of multi-door court house. Professor Sander argued that the court must transform from the court that provides litigation, only one type of dispute resolution, to the multi-door courthouse which provides a variety of dispute resolution methods including a number of ADR programs. The types of court-annexed ADR on which this paper focus are court-annexed mediation, court-annexed arbitration, mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, rent-a-judge, and med-arb in United States. The findings of this paper is as follows. First, the ADR movement is the irreversible and dominant phenomenon in the US court. The motivation of incorporating ADR into court is to reduce the cost of court to handle the civil disputes and to eliminate the delay of litigation process in the court. At the same time, a couple of studies of ADR revealed that the ADR program satisfied users of ADR. Second, the landscape of ADR has not been fixed. In 1970's, the court-annexed arbitration has been popular. In 1980's, the diverse kinds of ADR programs were introduced into the federal court as well as state courts, such as mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, and court-annexed mediation. But in 2000s, the court-annexed mediation has been the dominant type of ADR in United States. Third, the each type of ADR program has its own place for the dispute resolution. Since Korean society enters into the stage in which diverse kind of disputes occur in the areas of environment, construction, medicare, etc, it is desirable to take into consideration of the introduction of ADR to dispute resolution in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.459-488
• /
• 2004

General interest in the out-of-court dispute resolution system are mounting in Korea, and the spread of ADR(alternative dispute resolution) is the worldwide trend. In addition, it was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by ADR such as the decision based on arbitration made by the Prime Ministerial Administrative Decision Committee is no longer in exclusive possession of the civil case. The activation of ADR could lead to the smooth agreement between parties by getting away from the once-for-all mode of decision such as the dismissal of the application or the cancellation of disposal and the like in relation to administrative cases for the years. In consequence, it is anticipated that the administrative litigation that applicants have filed by not responding to the administrative decision would greatly reduce in the future. But, it would be urgent to provide for the legal ground of the ADR system through the revision of related laws to take root in our society because ADR has no legal binding power relating to the administrative case due to the absence of its legal grounds. The fundamental reason for having hesitated to introduce ADR in relation to the administrative case for the years is the protective interest of the third party as well as the public interest that would follow in case the agreement on the dispute resolution between parties brings the dispute to a termination in the domain of the public law. The disputes related to the contract based on the public law and the like that take on a judicial character as the administrative act have been settled within the province of ADR by applying the current laws such as the Civil Arbitration Law, Mediation Law, but their application to the administrative act of the administrative agency that takes on a character of the public law has been hesitated. But as discussed earlier, there are laws and regulations that has the obscure distinction between public and private laws. But there is no significant advantage in relation to the distinction between public and private laws. To supplement and cure these defects it is necessary to include the institutional arrangement for protection of the rights and benefits of the third party, for example the provision of the imposition of the binding power on the result of ADR between parties, in enacting its related law. It can be said that the right reorganization of the out-of-court dispute resolution system in relation to the administrative case corresponds with the ideology of public administration for cooperaton in the Administrative Law. It is high time to discuss within what realm the out-of-court dispute resolution system, alternative dispute resolution system, can be accepted and what binding power is imposed on its result, not whether it is entirely introduced into the administrative case. It is thought that the current Civil Mediation Law or Arbitration Law provides the possibility of applying arbitration or mediation only to the civil case, thereby opening the possibility of arbitration in the field of the intellectual property right law. For instance, the act of the state is not required in establishing the rights related to the secret of business or copyrights. Nevertheless, the disputes arising from or in connection with the intellectual property rights law is seen as the administrative case, and they are excluded from the object of arbitration or mediation, which is thought to be improper. This is not an argument for unconditionally importing ADR into the resolution of administrative cases. Most of the Korean people are aware that the administrative litigation system is of paramount importance as the legal relief for administrative cases. Seeing that there is an independent administrative decision system based on the Administrative Decision Law other than administrative litigation in relation to administrative cases, the first and foremost task is the necessity for the shift in thinking of people, followed by consideration of the plan for relief of the rights through the improvement of the administrative decision system. Then, it is necessary to formulate the plan for the formal introduction and activation of ADR. In this process, energetic efforts should be devoted to introducing diverse forms of ADR procedures such as settlement conference, case evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution other than compromise, conciliation, arbitration and mediation