{"title":"VANSUDSKO REŠAVANjE SPOROVA-ARBITRAŽA I MEDIJACIJA","authors":"Igor Kambovski","doi":"10.46793/xixmajsko.1051k","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In every democratic state, governed by the rule of law, the judicial system is a mirror of democracy, human rights and freedom. Strict legal and social standards related to the judiciary become narrow or somewhat ineffective over time, and the need for justice is ultimate. Courts are under the constant scrutiny of the professional, scientific, domestic and international public, and the public is often dissatisfied with the efficiency of the judicial system, considering that it does not provide effective and cheap protection of rights within a reasonable time and does not exclude secondary, political and similar influences on court proceedings. This imposes the need to find a solution to increase the efficiency of the judicial system, without abandoning the basic principles and postulates on which it is based. New, more rational trends and means to achieve such goals cause judicial reforms in the direction of dejudicialization, using alternative methods for resolving disputes. The scope of judicial reforms at the global level includes the following basic goals: 1) acceleration of access to justice by speeding up and simplifying court procedures; 2) relieving the courts of accumulated cases, which could be resolved in another, out-of-court procedure. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the general name for a method of out-of-court agreement and settlement that includes, first of all, arbitration and mediation, as the two main procedures of informal mediation and decision-making. The term ADR refers to any procedure that means an alternative, i.e. a substitute for a court procedure, an out-of- court way of resolving disputes. The possibility of alternative procedures is not limited in advance, so the emergence of new ADR methods cannot be limited or excluded. The main difference between the alternative procedure and the classic court procedure is that the dispute for which the court is competent is resolved without the formality of the court procedure, that is, it is not resolved by the court. Compared to court procedures, alternative procedures are much more flexible and adaptable to the nature of the dispute. Also, the alternative means relieving the court and saving time and money for the parties, as well as faster access to justice, i.e. dispute resolution.","PeriodicalId":325482,"journal":{"name":"Pravna regulativa usluga u nacionalnim zakonodavstvima i pravu Evropske Unije","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravna regulativa usluga u nacionalnim zakonodavstvima i pravu Evropske Unije","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46793/xixmajsko.1051k","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在每一个实行法治的民主国家,司法制度都是民主、人权和自由的一面镜子。随着时间的推移,与司法有关的严格的法律和社会标准变得狭隘或有些无效,对正义的需求是终极的。法院不断受到专业、科学、国内和国际公众的审查,公众往往对司法系统的效率感到不满,认为它没有在合理的时间内提供有效和廉价的权利保护,而且不排除对法院程序的次要、政治和类似影响。这就要求我们必须找到一种解决办法来提高司法制度的效率,同时又不放弃作为司法制度基础的基本原则和假设。为了实现这些目标,新的、更理性的趋势和手段促使司法改革朝着非司法化的方向发展,使用替代方法来解决纠纷。全球一级司法改革的范围包括以下基本目标:1)通过加快和简化法院程序加速诉诸司法;2)减轻法院积累的案件,这些案件可以通过另一种庭外程序解决。替代性争议解决(Alternative dispute resolution, ADR)是一种庭外协议和和解方式的总称,它首先包括仲裁和调解,这是非正式调解和决策的两个主要程序。ADR一词指的是任何程序,意味着一种替代,即法院程序的替代,庭外解决纠纷的方式。替代程序的可能性事先不受限制,因此不能限制或排除新的ADR方法的出现。替代程序与传统法院程序的主要区别在于,法院管辖的争议不经过法院程序的程序来解决,即不是由法院来解决。与法院程序相比,替代程序更灵活,更能适应争议的性质。此外,另一种选择意味着减轻法院的负担,为当事人节省时间和金钱,以及更快地诉诸司法,即解决争端。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
VANSUDSKO REŠAVANjE SPOROVA-ARBITRAŽA I MEDIJACIJA
In every democratic state, governed by the rule of law, the judicial system is a mirror of democracy, human rights and freedom. Strict legal and social standards related to the judiciary become narrow or somewhat ineffective over time, and the need for justice is ultimate. Courts are under the constant scrutiny of the professional, scientific, domestic and international public, and the public is often dissatisfied with the efficiency of the judicial system, considering that it does not provide effective and cheap protection of rights within a reasonable time and does not exclude secondary, political and similar influences on court proceedings. This imposes the need to find a solution to increase the efficiency of the judicial system, without abandoning the basic principles and postulates on which it is based. New, more rational trends and means to achieve such goals cause judicial reforms in the direction of dejudicialization, using alternative methods for resolving disputes. The scope of judicial reforms at the global level includes the following basic goals: 1) acceleration of access to justice by speeding up and simplifying court procedures; 2) relieving the courts of accumulated cases, which could be resolved in another, out-of-court procedure. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the general name for a method of out-of-court agreement and settlement that includes, first of all, arbitration and mediation, as the two main procedures of informal mediation and decision-making. The term ADR refers to any procedure that means an alternative, i.e. a substitute for a court procedure, an out-of- court way of resolving disputes. The possibility of alternative procedures is not limited in advance, so the emergence of new ADR methods cannot be limited or excluded. The main difference between the alternative procedure and the classic court procedure is that the dispute for which the court is competent is resolved without the formality of the court procedure, that is, it is not resolved by the court. Compared to court procedures, alternative procedures are much more flexible and adaptable to the nature of the dispute. Also, the alternative means relieving the court and saving time and money for the parties, as well as faster access to justice, i.e. dispute resolution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PRIMENA „BALANCED SCORECARD“ MODELA U BANKARSKOM POSLOVANjU PRAVNA REGULATIVA USLUGA PRIVATNE BEZBEDNOSTI U SRBIJI I EU PUNOMOĆJE DATO U INOSTRANSTVU ZA ZAKLjUČENjE UGOVORA O PROMETU NEPOKRETNOSTI KOJA SE NALAZI U DOMAĆOJ DRŽAVI – NEKOLIKO NAPOMENA IZ UGLA MEĐUNARODNOG PRIVATNOG PRAVA SRBIJE I MEĐUNARODNOG PRIVATNOG PRAVA CRNE GORE EKSPROPRIJACIJA KAO PREDUSLOV ZA PRUŽANjE USLUGA OD OPŠTEG INTERESA PRUŽANjE USLUGA KULTURNO-UMETNIČKIH DRUŠTAVA I CENTARA ZA NEGOVANjE TRADICIONALNE KULTURE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1