摘要:本文是一篇留学生法律判决作业,通过争端解决来达到正义,有效地实现正义是建立法治的基本条件之一。在过去,获得司法保护的权利基本上几乎完全意味着愤愤不平的个人正式提出诉讼或索赔辩护的权利,这是在严格的法律条款中规定的。
通过争端解决来达到正义
有效地实现正义是建立法治的基本条件之一。在过去,获得司法保护的权利基本上几乎完全意味着愤愤不平的个人正式提出诉讼或索赔辩护的权利,这是在严格的法律条款中规定的。更广泛的观点是ADR这样的声明背后又意味着什么:打开解决纠纷的新途径,缓解过度冗杂的状况,使法院减少不必要的缓慢。世界上存在的对抗性诉讼并不是解决纠纷唯一的途径。拥塞在法庭上打官司, 除了延迟、成本、程序之外还缺乏劳动力和资源,说出来这些需求更好方案,方法和途径。特别是ADR过程对司法系统具有重要的意义,必须尝试建立有效的解决方式的替代方法,这可以显著减少上民事法庭之前的小型纠纷,帮助提高法官的效率。
根据主伍尔夫的论述“…今天的民事审判面临的关键问题是成本,延迟和复杂性”。[1]
Access To Justice Through Dispute Resolution Law
Essay
Effective access to justice is one of the fundamental conditions for the establishment of the rule of law. In the past, the right of access to judicial protection meant essentially and almost exclusively the aggrieved individual’s formal right to litigate or defend a claim, defined in strictly legal terms. A broader view of what is going on behind such claims, which characterizes ADR, opens new pathways to resolving disputes, relieving the overcrowding that makes court cases unnecessarily slow. The world has experienced that adversarial litigation is not the only means of resolving disputes. Congestion in courtrooms, lack of labour and resources in addition with delay, cost, procedure, speak out for the need of better options, approaches, and avenues. In particular, ADR processes are of significant importance to justice systems when effective establishment of alternative means of dispute resolution can significantly reduce the number of minor disputes before the civil courts, helping to improve the availability of judges for cases, which must be tried.
According to Lord Woolf “…. the key problem facing civil justice today is cost, delay, and complexity”. [1] He further noted “Without effective judicial control…. the consequence is that the expense is often excessive, disproportionate, and unpredictable; and delay is frequently unreasonable. [2] His three main aspects of reforms were: (i) judicial case management, (ii) pre-action protocols and (iii) alternatives to going to court. Even with that change in the Civil Procedure for expeditious disposal of cases through the traditional court process, the reformer gave importance to alternative dispute resolution.
The Supreme Court of India has made a critical observation regarding civil litigation: “Justice cries in silence for long, far too long. The procedural wrangle is eroding the faith in our justice system” [3] . Justice V.R. Krishna Ayer comments about the court system of India: “Watching the dilatory complexities of our forensic procedures, the meaningless waste of judicial time and energy from the trial court to the high and supreme courts and the easy possibility of economy of time and money, one wonders why we hesitate to change”. [4]
“Access to justice con
notes more than simply entering into formal courts of law; it includes the ability to reach lawmakers, lawyers, law enforcing officials and the capacity to pay for these services.
In the ADR approach, for example, disputes were classified by function of the forum best suited to solve the same. This idea, called ‘new formalism’, [5] supposes that disputes are sufficiently stable and can be described using a limited number of variables [6] such as admitted liability [7] or relational distance between the parties, [8] that have been found to affect on disputants’ degree of satisfaction and compliance with diverse dispute resolution modes and outcomes. [9] Procedural justice, i.e., the degree o
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。