ADR que 1

Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) refers to any method of resolving disputes without litigation. ADR regroups all
processes and techniques of conflict resolution that occur outside of any governmental authority. The most famous ADR
methods are the following: mediation, arbitration, conciliation, negotiation, and transaction.

All ADR methods have common characteristics – i.e., enabling the parties to find admissible solutions to their conflicts
outside of traditional legal / court proceedings, but are governed by different rules. For instance, in negotiation there is
no third party who intervenes to help the parties reach an agreement, unlike in mediation and conciliation, where the
purpose of the third party is to promote an amicable agreement between the parties. In arbitration, the third party (an
arbitrator or several arbitrators) will play an important role as it will render an arbitration award that will be binding on
the parties. In comparison, in conciliation and mediation, the third party does not impose any binding decision.

If all the ADR methods are different, they should not be compared and confronted because in practice, the parties
combine the use of these different ADRs. For instance, the parties may stipulate in their contracts that in the event of a
dispute they will first submit to an attempt at amicable settlement (conciliation/mediation) and only in the event of
failure will they resort to a judicial method of settlement, which may be arbitration or recourse to the State justice
system. ADRs therefore come into play at different levels and have a complementary character.

The main advantages of ADR are rapidity, confidentiality and flexibility.

Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards
if the disputing parties formed a valid contract to abide by them.

Overview

Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") refers to any means of settling disputes outside of the courtroom. ADR typically
includes early neutral evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. As burgeoning court queues, rising
costs of litigation, and time delays continue to plague litigants, more states have begun experimenting with ADR
programs. Some of these programs are voluntary; others are mandatory.

 Negotiation

Negotiation is the preeminent mode of dispute resolution. While the two most known forms of ADR are arbitration and
mediation, negotiation is almost always attempted first to resolve a dispute. Negotiation allows the parties to meet in
order to settle a dispute. The main advantage of this form of dispute settlement is that it allows the parties themselves to
control the process and the solution. Negotiation is much less formal than other types of ADRs and allows for a lot of
flexibility.

 Mediation

Mediation is also an informal alternative to litigation. Mediators are individuals trained in negotiations, who bring
opposing parties together and attempt to work out a settlement or agreement that both parties accept or reject.
Mediation is not binding. Mediation is used for a wide gamut of case-types ranging from juvenile felonies to federal
government negotiations with Native American Indian tribes. Mediation has also become a significant method for
resolving disputes between investors and their stock brokers. See Securities Dispute Resolution.

 Arbitration

Arbitration is one of the most emblematic and growing forms of ADR. Arbitration is more formal than mediation and has
a lot of similarities with traditional court proceedings, involving limited discovery and simplified rules of
evidence (ex. hearsay is usually admissible in arbitration).

Different types of arbitration exist:

 national arbitration: for example American arbitration, French arbitration or German arbitration which are all
governed by different rules enacted by the institutions of each country;
  international commercial arbitration: usually used to settle disputes that arise from commercial contractual
relations between buyers and sellers who are in two different states;
 investor-State arbitration: unilateral referral by private individual investors to an arbitral tribunal against a host
State of their investment.

Other types of arbitration and areas of specialization for this ADR exist, such as construction arbitration, post M&A
arbitration, etc.

Arbitration relies on the consent of the parties, therefore the arbitration agreement is emblematic because it is the
gateway to the particular system that is arbitration. Prior to the dispute occurring, parties usually enter into a binding
arbitration agreement or any other form of agreement with an arbitration clause, that allows them to lay out major
terms for the arbitration process (number of arbitrators, arbitration forum; arbitration rules; fees etc.).

If parties still have disputes about certain terms before entering into an arbitration they can petition to a court to resolve
a dispute. Arbitration can be held ad hoc or with the administrative support from one of the institutional providers like
American Arbitration Association (AAA) or JAMS when the arbitration is national.

The arbitration is headed and decided by an arbitral panel or a single arbitrator, depending on the agreement of the
parties. Arbitrators do not have to be lawyers, parties can select arbitrators from other fields that they consider more
suitable for the resolution of the dispute, which usually occurs when the arbitration deals with a very specialized topic
such as construction or pharmaceutical issues. Indeed, parties can for example choose an arbitrator with an engineering
background to arbitrate a construction dispute.

To comprise a panel, either both sides agree on one arbitrator, or each side selects one arbitrator and the two arbitrators
elect the third. Arbitration hearings usually last between a few days to a week, and the panel only meets for a few hours
per day. The panel or a single arbitrator then deliberates and issues a written binding decision or arbitral award.
Opinions are not public record. Arbitration has long been used in labor, construction, and securities regulation, but is
now gaining popularity in other business disputes. For national arbitration, Title 9 of the U.S. Code establishes federal
law supporting arbitration. It is based on Congress's plenary power over interstate commerce. Where Title 9 applies, its
terms prevail over state law. There are, however, numerous state laws on ADR. Forty-nine states have adopted the 1956
version of the Uniform Arbitration Act as state law. The act was revised in 2000 and subsequently adopted by twelve
states. The arbitration agreement and award is now enforceable under both state and federal law.

In 1958, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, or the "New York Convention",
was drafted to aid in the enforcement in domestic courts of awards granted in foreign countries. In 1970, the United
States joined and, as of November 2021, there are 156 countries participating in the convention.

NALSA, along with Legal Services Institutions, conducts Lok Adalats as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Lok
Adalats, governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, provide a forum for amicable settlement of disputes at pre-
litigation or court-pending stages. The awards issued by Lok Adalats are deemed as decrees of civil courts, and their decisions
are final and binding. While there's no provision for appeals, dissatisfied parties can initiate litigation through regular court
procedures.

Notably, no court fees are applicable for Lok Adalat filings. If a court-referred case is settled, the original court fees are
refunded. Lok Adalat members, serving as statutory conciliators, lack a judicial role and focus on persuading parties to reach
settlements. They don't decide matters independently but facilitate resolutions based on parties' compromises. The emphasis
is on an impartial and independent approach to assisting parties in amicably settling disputes.

Lok Adalats play a significant role in dispute resolution in India, providing an alternative and effective mechanism for settling
disputes. Here are some important aspects highlighting the significance of Lok Adalats in the Indian legal system:

1. **Speedy Resolution:**
- Lok Adalats are known for their expeditious resolution of disputes. They aim to provide quick justice to the parties involved,
reducing the burden on the traditional judicial system.
2. **Cost-Effective:**
- Participation in Lok Adalats is usually cost-free or involves minimal fees. This makes the justice system more accessible to
economically weaker sections of society, promoting inclusivity and fairness.

3. **Informal Atmosphere:**
- Lok Adalats operate in a more informal setting compared to traditional courts. This informal atmosphere can be more
conducive to amicable negotiations and settlements, fostering a sense of cooperation among the parties.

4. **Legal Recognition:**
- Awards and settlements made by Lok Adalats are legally binding and have the same status as a decree of a civil court. This
legal recognition ensures that the decisions are enforceable and carry weight.

5. **Voluntary Participation:**
- Participation in Lok Adalats is voluntary, and both parties must agree to submit their dispute for resolution. This ensures
that the parties are more likely to comply with the settlement, as it is reached with their consent.

6. **Scope of Disputes:**
- Lok Adalats handle a wide range of disputes, including civil, criminal, matrimonial, and compoundable criminal cases. This
broad scope allows for the resolution of various conflicts, contributing to the overall efficiency of the justice system.

7. **Emphasis on Conciliation:**
- Lok Adalats focus on conciliation and compromise. The emphasis is on resolving disputes amicably rather than adopting an
adversarial approach. This approach promotes harmony and understanding among the parties involved.

8. **Reduction of Backlog:**
- By resolving disputes promptly, Lok Adalats contribute to reducing the backlog of cases in the regular courts. This helps in
the efficient functioning of the entire judicial system.

9. **Public Awareness and Participation:**

- Lok Adalats often conduct awareness programs to educate the public about their rights and the benefits of alternative
dispute resolution. This encourages people to approach Lok Adalats for the resolution of their disputes.

10. **Flexible Procedures:**

- Lok Adalats have the flexibility to adopt procedures that are suitable for the nature of the dispute. This adaptability allows
for a more tailored approach to dispute resolution.

In summary, Lok Adalats serve as a crucial component of the Indian legal system, promoting accessibility, efficiency, and
fairness in the resolution of disputes. Their role in providing a speedy, cost-effective, and voluntary alternative to traditional
litigation has contributed significantly to the legal landscape in India.