developer_admin

As an extension of ADR, a new practice called “HYBRID ADR” has recently come into practice. Hybrid ADR means nothing but combining various traditional methods of dispute resolution to suit the different needs and preferences of various parties. This can be a useful approach particularly when the dispute is complex and requires a more tailored solution than what traditional ADR methods offer.For example, in a hybrid mediation-arbitration process, the parties first attempt to resolve their dispute through mediation, but if they are unable to reach an agreement, the mediator will become the arbitrator and make a binding decision on the dispute. In a hybrid negotiation-arbitration process, the parties first attempt to negotiate a settlement but if they cannot agree, they will move to arbitration and if the arbitration also doesn’t succeed, the parties can move into litigation.Hybrid ADR can offer several benefits over traditional ADR methods. Firstly, it can be more flexible, allowing parties to customize the process to their needs. Secondly, it can save time and money, as parties can avoid a lengthy court process by resolving their dispute through ADR. Finally, it can be more effective, as it allows parties to use a range of methods to achieve a resolution that works for them.However, hybrid ADR also has some potential drawbacks. The process can become more complex and confusing if parties are not familiar with the different ADR methods. Additionally, parties may not agree on the order or combination of ADR methods to use, which can lead to delays and impasses.Overall, we can say that hybrid ADR is an innovative approach to resolving disputes that allows parties to tailor the process to their needs, and can result in more efficient, effective, and satisfactory outcomes.

Message from the Blog Team ECI’s Blog Team invites original contributions from students, researchers, academicians, legal practitioners, and those who are passionate about ADR, with the objective of facilitating a dynamic academic discourse and widening the scope for creative research works in the field of ADR. We highly encourage the authors to take a multidisciplinary approach when addressing pertinent research areas in the field of ADR. If you are willing to make an academic contribution in this field, ECI is your platform to be! SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Content: Owing to the nature of the journal, we shall only accept entries that are related to Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’). ·The entries must showcase a predominant link to ADR. All the authors are requested to send only Original Content. All the submissions shall go through a mandatory process of plagiarism check. Covering Letter: Submissions must be sent to [email protected]. ·All submissions must be accompanied by a cover letter, containing the name of the author/s, institutional/organisation affiliation, title and category of the submission and a contact address of the author, including the e-mail address and the phone number. Submissions should be sent as MS word (.doc format) attachments with the title of the article as the file name. The author is also requested to attach an image to accompany the piece. However, this does not form a mandatory requirement. The image should be representative of the submission’s topic, area, or argument. It should be high quality (upwards of 1000p) and have an aspect ratio of 1:1 (Square). Detailed guidelines – https://excuriainternational.com/guidelines-for-blog-submission/

– Written by Dmitry Davydenko* It is always important to find ways to settle disputes amicably. This is especially true nowadays when numerous obstacles hinder the proper performance of contracts, especially international ones. In particular, pandemic-caused restrictions lead to numerous situations where a party becomes unable to perform a contract or such performance becomes impractical. Apart from that, for instance, in Russia – West or Iran – US context, business relations meet severe challenges. If parties solve a dispute through a court procedure, it becomes especially difficult to get a judgment or an award recognized and enforced internationally. Arbitrating a dispute remains an option but it may take much time and effort and the result sometimes, unfortunately, proves unenforceable for various reasons, even though some positive recent cases do exist. Therefore, the ideal solution for the parties consists in showing wisdom and cooperating in the spirit of good faith, doing as much as possible to keep the contract, or if it gets impossible, terminating relations in a way that no one feels offended and wants to retaliate. One of the most appropriate legal instruments for that is the settlement agreement. I. The settlement agreement in domestic and international law Although many people have an idea about settlement agreements, still understanding of this legal instrument in various legal systems differs. The substantive laws of many States of continental Europe contain provisions for a settlement agreement. For example, the French Civil Code expressly governs “Contrat de transaction”, and the Italian Civil Code has similar (but far from identical) rules on the transaction. In some post-Soviet States, only procedural law expressly governs settlement agreement, rather than substantive law. Many other jurisdictions provide for no express regulation of this contract, so it just exists in practice.  Unfortunately, parties sometimes fail to fulfill a settlement agreement. When parties decide whether to conclude such an agreement, they often have serious concerns about how to ensure its performance. This becomes especially relevant in the international context when the parties locate their enterprises or businesses in different states, with the result that the assets of one party appear hardly accessible to the other. Summing up, the parties who take the decision “to settle or not to settle” have a legitimate interest in ensuring the cross-border enforceability of the agreement.  International law contains scarce regulations on the cross-border enforceability of the settlement agreement. The only universal instrument has become the Singapore Convention, but it governs only the cross-border enforceability of settlement agreements reached as a result of mediation. Meanwhile, if a settlement agreement is reached as a result of mediation properly conducted then normally its content corresponds to the interests of the parties. Ensuring its expedient performance is praiseworthy but the Singapore Convention will likely need much time to become effective and universally accepted.  Another problem with the convention remains in the fact that it constitutes the fruit of international compromise; otherwise, it would not be possible to reach a mutually acceptable solution while negotiating and drafting the convention. As such, it does not establish expedient enforceability. It just specifies uniform rules pursuant to which a party may ask the competent court to enforce the agreement, but the other party has quite plenty of opportunities to oppose the enforcement, much more than the party opposing the enforcement of the arbitral award under the New York Convention 1958. For instance, under the Singapore Convention, the opposing party may allege that the content is contrary to applicable law, that it is not operative, void on some grounds, and that there may be several other reasons. As a result, the court procedure concerning enforceability will likely take quite some time and thus become burdensome. Therefore, other ways to ensure cross-border enforceability of settlement agreements apart from the Singapore Convention need exploration.  II. Legal opportunities for enforcement of settlement agreements Currently, the common denominator consists in enforcing the settlement agreement as an ordinary contract. As a result, the respective procedure will be judicial and, likely, more or less lengthy. If the settlement agreement contains an arbitration clause, the enforcement may perhaps become more expedient, as in many jurisdictions arbitration normally takes less time and resources than court litigation. It also frequently remains a good option to consider including in the settlement agreement a mediation clause in addition to an arbitration clause so that it will increase the chance of voluntary compliance with it and then, if necessary, of its enforceability by arbitration.  III. Differences in the governing law matter when drafting a settlement agreement The method of enforcing a settlement agreement will often depend on the legal system concerned in the said agreement. These differences require consideration when choosing law applicable to the substance of the settlement agreement. The remedies in case of non-performance of the settlement agreement would depend not only on the content of the agreement itself but also on the applicable law. In civil law countries, a more likely legal remedy will consist of specific performance of the agreement if it contains a duty to take some actions, e.g. to surrender the property. In common law countries, the primary remedy will include damages. For example, under Australian law in case of breach of contract normally a court or tribunal would award damages, while specific performance would become an applicable remedy only in relation to some unique objects for example real estate objects which are not something that cannot be required in the market. A similar approach exists in Swiss law. On the contrary, usually in civil law jurisdictions, specific performance would constitute an ordinary remedy and the court or tribunal would award damages only if specific performance proves impossible in a particular case.  Furthermore, the way how in case of litigation a judge or an arbitral tribunal will interpret the mutual rights and duties of the parties will also depend on the applicable law. Again, different legal traditions exist as regards the legal doctrine of force majeure. Thus, common law generally contains no default rule on force majeure so what parties include in the settlement agreement will become their force majeure event. In contrast, civil