Alternative methods of dispute resolution are different, because they assume a variety of forms:
By mutual agreement
- Stakeholder Dialogue
- Judgment of the Case in an Early Stage
- Neutral Feedback at an Early Stage
- Intermediation (Mediation)
- Expert Decision
- Mini Process
- Judgment (Arbitration)
Alternative methods of the dispute resolution are:
- Different method of dispute resolution
- Flexible tool for forming the correct procedure for resolving disputes through alternative means
- Possibility for the empowerment of the parties.
Why to use the alternative methods for resolving disputes:
- Customers gain powers, while maintaining control over the results
- Continue to maintain relationships
- Alternative methods are confidential
- Alternative methods are private
- Alternative methods no harm
- The right to a trial is preserved (protected is a fundamental human right)
What is the difference between the mediation and the arbitration?
Although mediation and arbitration have the same goal in mind, a fair resolution of the issues at hand, there are some major differences which both parties must understand beforehand. Unlike arbitration, the initiation of the mediation procedure is not an explicit contractual clause, but it is sufficient for both parties so request. The main difference between arbitration and mediation is that in arbitration the arbitrator hears evidence and makes a decision. Arbitration is like the court process as the parties still provide testimony and give evidence similar to a trial but it is usually less formal. In mediation, the process is a negotiation with the assistance of a neutral third party. The parties do not reach a resolution unless all sides agree. Mediators do not issue orders, find fault, or make determinations. Instead, mediators help the parties to reach a settlement by assisting with communications, obtaining relevant information, and developing options. Although mediation procedures may vary, the parties usually first meet together with the mediator informally to explain their views of the dispute. Often the mediator will then meet with each party separately. The mediator discusses the dispute with them, and explores with each party possible ways to resolve it. It is common for the mediator to go back and forth between the sides a number of times. The main focus remains with the parties as they work towards a mutually beneficial solution. Most disputes are successfully resolved and often the parties will then enter into a written settlement agreement. Many people report a higher degree of satisfaction with mediation than with arbitration or other court processes because they can control the result and be part of the resolution. Arbitration, on the other hand, is generally a more formal process than mediation. An arbitrator could be a retired judge, a senior lawyer or a professional such as an accountant or an engineer. During the arbitration, the both parties are given an opportunity to present their cases to the arbitrator. Much like a regular court proceeding, the lawyers can also question witnesses from both sides. During arbitration, there are usually little if any out-of-court negotiations between the parties. The arbitrator has the power to render a legally binding decision which the both parties must honour and the award is enforceable in state court and the courts of 142 countries.
Advantages of the alternative methods:
The benefits of alternative methods are indisputable – the reduction of the application and a procedural economy, even if some of the issues are resolved. Positive consequences directly affect and the parties – increasing potential opportunity to the conclusion of the agreement, which after the approval of the court and under Article 78, Paragraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Code half of the paid state fee shall be returned to the applicant. The complexity and slowness of ordinary civil litigation in state courts, as a rule the unpreparedness of judges in matters of commerce and industry, financial, credit and other similar equipment and organization cannot satisfy the stakeholders. Professional legal knowledge by themselves are insufficient to allow the state judges to understand the relations of this nature. Often even to clarify the facts of the dispute, they are forced to resort to experts’ reports, which makes the trial more expensive and slower. The exclusive practical experience of the arbitrators, which the parties at its own discretion choose according to the specific circumstances of the each case, is combined with such important advantages such as the speed of the proceedings. The procedure is about one instance unlike the two-or three instance proceedings of the state courts. The arbitration proceedings is not as formal as the court proceedings. This advantage of the arbitration process is crucial to the party from abroad. The conducting a civil action before a foreign state court invariably requires the legal aid of a local lawyer for it, while facing the Arbitration Court and Mediation Center such need does not exist.