替代性争议解决方式实践的比较分析——澳大利亚和中国的启示  

Comparative Analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices—Insights from Australia and China

作　　者：谢天馨 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学国际法学院,上海

出　　处：《争议解决》2024年第12期151-161,共11页Dispute Settlement

摘　　要：本文通过比较分析澳大利亚和中国的替代性争议解决方式(ADR)实践,探讨了两国在法律框架、司法实践和文化背景方面的异同。研究发现,尽管两国都认识到ADR在改善司法救助和减少诉讼压力方面的重要性,但在推广ADR的方式和程度上存在显著差异。澳大利亚采取鼓励性方法,强调当事人自愿参与ADR,而中国则更倾向于制度化和主动推广调解。文章还分析了法院、法官和律师在ADR中的不同角色,以及在线争议解决(ODR)在两国的发展状况。研究指出,两国在ADR实践中都面临平衡效率与公平、鼓励与强制之间的挑战,未来可通过相互借鉴来完善各自的ADR体系。This article explores the similarities and differences in legal frameworks, judicial practices and cultural backgrounds of Australia and China by comparatively analysing their alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices. The study finds that although both countries recognise the importance of ADR in improving access to justice and reducing litigation pressure, there are significant differences in the manner and extent to which ADR is promoted. Australia takes an encouraging approach, emphasising voluntary participation in ADR, while China prefers to institutionalise and proactively promote mediation. The article also analyses the different roles of courts, judges and lawyers in ADR, as well as the development of online dispute resolution (ODR) in both countries. The study points out that both countries are facing the challenges of balancing efficiency and fairness, encouragement and coercion in ADR practice, and that they can improve their respective ADR systems in the future by learning from each other.

关 键 词：替代性争议解决(ADR) 比较法研究 司法实践 在线争议解决(ODR) 

分 类 号：R97[医药卫生—药品]