Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yollarına Genel Bir Bakış
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
ADR genel olarak, dava yoluyla mukayese edildiğinde daha uygun, verimli ve daha az zarar vericidir. Dava yolu resmî ve mücadeleci bir süreçtir ve bu süreç, taraflar arasındaki husumeti daha da derinleştirir. Yargısal yaklaşım, birbirleriyle çalışacak olan veya ortak bir hayat sürdürecek olan kişilerin taraf olduğu uyuşmazlıklarda tercih edilen bir yol olmayabilir. Buna karşılık, ADR çoğunlukla, tarafların karşılıklı menfaatlerine uygun olan veya kazan-kazan sonucunu doğuran çözümler üretir. ADR, uyuşmazlığın tarafları arasında güven ve anlayışı tesis etmek yanında, mevcut olan gerginliği de azaltır. The use of alternative dispute resolution in the legal system is not new for lawyers. Many of the ADR methods in current use have existed for hundred years in various legal systems. ADR methods, however, did not become widespread until 1970?s. ADR has spread successfully throughout the Anglo-Saxon countries in these years. Civil justice has been in crisis for a long time. Justice is not was not accessible to everyone because of rising costs and overcrowded courts. This judicial congestion led to claims that equal access to justice had been denied. And the use of ADR has developed rapidly in order to relieve court congestion and undue costs and delay, to facilitate access to justice, and to provide more effective dispute resolution. Some countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have been very active in adopting legislative measures on ADR and others have been considering changes in their rules of civil procedure for quite a while. For example, the United States has enacted legislation to encourage the use of ADR methods. First, the passage of two legislative acts, Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 and Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, designed to increase the use of ADR by federal agencies and then two executive orders issued requires the suggest and use of ADR by federal agencies in appropriate circumstances. Next, Congress passed the ADR Act in 1998. ADR can achieve these goals, because it has many advantages. First, ADR can better preserve ongoing relationships of the disputants. Second, ADR can provide more effective management of disputes. Third, ADR is more cost efficient. Fourth, ADR is more time efficient. Finally, ADR can preserve confidentiality. All of the ADR methods are more flexible and more creative than traditional litigation. They may be used either before the trial or during a pending lawsuit. Most common forms of ADR are negotiation, mediation, arbitration, summary jury trial, mini-trial, and moderated settlement conference. It is possible to use two methods in conjunction with one another. These are called hybrid processes. Nowadays, most of law schools focus on teaching negotiation and other ADR skills. It is generally accepted that ADR methods must be included in a law schools professional skills curriculum.