Small Claims Court in Environmental Disputes Resolution to Support the Realization of Sustainable Development

An appropriate business dispute resolution will ensure that the parties involved would not have to spend too much time and cost to resolve their case. There are two ways to resolve business disputes, through litigation and non-litigation process. The non-litigation process mainly depends upon the agreement of the parties involved and does not have a formally binding force upon them. Although the non-litigation process is more preferred in resolving business disputes, sometimes it does not completely resolve the issue. A specific business dispute resolution procedure such as the mechanism of small claims court （an informal court） is required. The objectives of the small claims court are to settle cases in prompt and cost-effective manner, and to avoid lengthy and complex formal legal procedures. Although it is still a part of the litigation process, the small claims court applies simplified procedures that are different from those of conventional civil cases. Nonetheless, the judgment of the small claims court has the same legally binding force as that of general court. The small claims court is situated in the District Court, but the examination of cases is different from general procedures and until now the mechanism has not been widely known in Indonesia.

Adjustment and Reorganization of the Diversified Dispute Resolution from the Perspective of State Governance

The diversified dispute resolution(DDR)in China is different from the alternative dispute resolution(ADR)in Western countries with respect to its fundamental cause and political,economic,social,and cultural backgrounds.To better understand the DDR,the academic community shall go beyond the superficial feature of"distributing the burden of litigation"of the ADR in Western countries and consider it as the basic institutional arrangement and regular governance practice of state governance.Furthermore,we can adjust and reorganize the DDR based on such understanding.Specificaly,after understanding the general features of dispute resolution forms,we should mobilize,aggregate,integrate,and use the dispute resolution resources in a society to improve and expand non-litigation dispute resolution forms and increase the overall supply of dispute resolution resources.Understanding the real features of disputes in China and its specific demands for dispute resolution.guide or regulate the choice of dispute resolution foms for the parties to a dispute through reasonable system design,so that the dispute resolution demands and dispute resolution forms can be matched.In particular,the Communist Party of China(CPC)and Chinese governments should play the leading and organizing role in the DDR,to comprehensively improve the effectiveness of the"Pluralistic-Unity-Style"dispute resolution.

"Fengqiao Model" and the Structural Changes of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in China

As the idea of diversified dispute resolution becomes common sense,the structural relations of different dispute resolution mechanisms have become the focus of practice reforms and theoretical controversies in China.The 60-year development of the"Fengqiao Model"has always focused on the overall design of the dispute resolution system,which provides a foundation and plenty of materials for understanding these structural relationships.Combined with the development of social theory,this paper summarizes a general structural theory of dispute resolution mechanisms based on the"Fengqiao Model."This theory advocates that the structure of dispute resolution mechanisms is the outcome of the integration of state intervention,social self-regulatory,and their interactions with various dispute resolution mechanisms.It can be used to explain the formation and change of the dispute resolution system in China,the structural strain in recent years,the overall plan of structural adjustment since 2012,and the next strategic core of profound adjustment.It also can be used to explain why the"Fengqiao Model"is so persistent and widely applicable,and how the"Fengqiao Model"be converted from a local model to an overall requirement,showing the great meaning of adhering to and developing the"Fengqiao Model'at present.

The Dual Aspects of Administrative Reconsideration System from the Perspective of a Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The proposition of a diversified dispute resolution mechanism is mainly to realize the reasonable diversion of cases and promote the substantive resolution of disputes.Under this framework,all dispute resolution mechanisms must strictly follow the basic judicial principles and norms and abide by the bottom line of justice in the subjects and procedure of"dispute resolution"in order to gain the trust of the concerned parties.It is necessary to fully activate and give full play to their own characteristics and advantages and carry out the equal and orderly competition in the"diversified mechanism"to ensure that the concerned parties'right of free choice can be substantially expanded.As one of the components of the"diversified dispute resolution mechanism,"the administrative reconsideration system should have the dual aspects of judicialization and administerization.The two aspects are not in a diametric opposition or tradeoff relation,but rather,they merely differ in observation perspectives,zone of action and specific direction to such an extent without compromising their coexistence and reciprocal promotion.Only by the judicalization and administerization of the administrative reconsideration system can we get it out of the current dilemma and gradually turn it into the main channel to solve administrative disputes.

On Modernization of the Diversified Resolution Mechanism for Civil and Commercial Disputes in China

The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward a scientific and systematic theory of the Chinese path to modernization,in which the modernization of the rule of law is both an integral part and a strong guarantee.Building a modern socialist country in all respects under the rule of law requires attention to the settlement of civil and commercial disputes.The separation of civil society and the political state,along with their mutual influence,has led to the development of diverse dispute-resolution mechanisms.Globalization has further accelerated their development and transformation.In face of the adjustments to the dispute resolution system amid the unprecedented changes of the century,China should complete the top-level design of the diversified settlement of civil and commercial disputes by deploying legislative and judicial resources to enhance the leading role of litigation in resolving these disputes.At the same time,China should continue to prioritize alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,improve the credibility of arbitration,and leverage the aggregating power of mediation,so as to serve the construction of the Chinese path to modernization.

Benefits for the bunker industry in adopting blockchain technology for dispute resolution

he bunker industry has faced negative perception to their trust and credibility in recent times.This is further compounded by the need for the industry to answer new challenges to meet the requirement of the International Maritime Organization 2020.The aim of this work is to illustrate how blockchain technology may be adopted for aiding in bunker dispute resolution.To demonstrate how blockchain may aid in disputes within the bunker industry,this paper first examines the existing bunker supply process,which involves the formation of contracts under English law,the Bunker Delivery Notes,the different types of disputes that may arise during a bunker transaction and the methods of dispute resolution utilised by the industry.Furthermore,the current literature in relation to blockchain technology and blockchain smart contracts is examined.Finally,interviews and surveys within the industry have been conducted to identify the benefits and challenges in adopting blockchain technology.The research found that blockchains may benefit the bunker supply chain offering the effective resolution of bunker quality disputes.Furthermore,blockchains may also serve as a verification tool for electronic bunker delivery notes,which may aid quality and quantity bunker disputes as well as compliance with the new International Maritime Organisation 2020 requirements.As a result,despite the research having shown blockchain to be situationally dependent and having an element of legal uncertainty,blockchain does offer a solution to aid in bunker disputes and for improving the trust and credibility within the bunker industry.

The Implementation of the Global Minimum Tax(GloBE):The Need for an Effective Dispute Prevention and Resolution Mechanism

The successful implementation of the Global Anti-Base Erosion(GloBE)rules on a global scale cannot be achieved without an international effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanism.However,the development of a dispute prevention and resolution framework for the GloBE rules faces significant challenges.This article offers two possible options for an effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanism:a model based on reciprocal domestic legislations and the multilateral convention model.

民事公益诉讼的功能分类和程序分野

民事公益诉讼入法的十余年间,司法实践的发展形态与立法者的设想并不完全一致。检察机关迅速在公益诉讼中处于一家独大的领导者角色,在起到积极作用的同时,也带来了一些可能的隐患。面向未来,应当区分民事公益诉讼的法律监督功能和纠纷解决功能,并根据两个功能配置不同的程序规定,在坚持检察机关主导诉前程序的同时,强化法院审判权在公益诉讼程序中的主导作用,以此实现从一家独大到双轮驱动的转变,更好地实现民事公益诉讼的价值和目的。

体育仲裁制度建设重点问题研究

中国体育仲裁委员会设立运行伊始,在仲裁程序与规则适用中面临一些难题,集中体现在运动员工作合同纠纷由劳动仲裁委员会管辖还是体育仲裁委员会管辖更为妥当,如何强化与国内外解纷机制的衔接与协调,如何充分保障体育纠纷解决及时性等。鉴于体育仲裁在管辖、执行、专业性等方面具有优势,由体育仲裁委员会管辖运动员工作合同纠纷更为合适;体育组织还需积极探索建设多元化的内部解纷机制,体育仲裁委员会则应适当行使自裁管辖权,做好内部解纷机制与体育仲裁的衔接;同时,关注国际体育解纷机制的新发展、新变化,确保国际体育解纷机制与体育仲裁的协调,积极回应体育纠纷处理的及时性要求,形成由“法律—规则—办法”构成的临时措施规则体系。

论环境纠纷非诉解决机制的专门化与法典回应

环境纠纷的特殊性与环境责任的专门性要求环境纠纷非诉解决机制应在传统方式的基础上进行专门化构建。国外的环境纠纷非诉解决机制的专门化主要体现为专门的环境纠纷行政处理机制、专门法院附设ADR机制、专门的民间性环境ADR机制三种样态。我国的环境纠纷非诉解决机制专门化应朝着引入中立评估、重塑环境纠纷行政处理、激活环境仲裁、健全生态磋商、探索设立新型环境ADR机构等方向努力。同时,在生态环境法典编纂的背景下,环境纠纷非诉解决机制专门化也应在法典中得到回应,明确专门化的基本内容和形式。

行政裁决救济的理论逻辑与制度安排

中国有关行政裁决救济的规定散见于各类法律、法规、规章以及行政规范性文件之中,呈现出一般规定与特别规定俱有、民事诉讼与行政诉讼等多种模式并存的立法现状。在理论上,学界亦相继提出“两者择一说”“两者合一说”“新型诉讼说”等多种方案。行政裁决救济有其特殊的内在机理,需回归行政裁决之本质,恪守基本的司法原理,并遵循司法最终解决、纠纷实质化解和便宜当事人三项原则。为此,较为科学和周全的制度安排应是,将“裁决结果”与“裁决行为”区分开来,采取严格的双轨制。当事人若对行政机关化解民事纠纷的“裁决结果”不服,应以民事纠纷的另一方当事人为被告提起民事诉讼;当事人若对行政机关化解民事纠纷的“裁决行为”不服,如裁决人员出现违法渎职行为,应通过行政内部监督机制或纪检监察机制解决。

诉源治理下农村土地承包经营纠纷仲裁制度的实践反思——以广东S市为例

以广东省S市农地承包经营纠纷仲裁制度实证调查为基础,深入探究我国《农村土地承包经营纠纷调解仲裁法》在具体运作中存在的缺陷。结合诉源治理将社会纠纷“源头预防、前端化解”的要求,提出厘清制度的性质定位,明确仲裁机构独立性,赋予仲裁“一裁终局”效力,尝试构建仲裁与调解相结合、仲裁与诉讼相衔接的良性互动机制等一系列解困建议,以重现公正、及时解决农村土地承包经营纠纷,提升矛盾纠纷预防化解法治化水平,完善中国特色多元化纠纷解决机制。

论欧盟消费争端解决机制及其经验借鉴

经济全球化加剧了国际市场的复杂性,使消费者的弱势地位更加明显。欧盟及其主要成员国基于弱者保护理论、公司社会责任理论、实质正义理论以及政府公正执法理念,建立了优势鲜明的消费争端解决机制,主要包括惩罚性损害赔偿原则以及小额诉讼、集体诉讼、集体仲裁、公益诉讼等制度。其以保护消费者为核心理念的争端解决机制,灵活实用的小额消费诉讼机制,功能特殊的消费公益诉讼机制,优势鲜明的消费者集体诉讼机制和消费者集体仲裁机制,独具一格的惩罚性损害赔偿原则,为其他国家消费争端解决机制的建立和健全提供了宝贵经验。

人民法院多元纠纷解决机制的实证研究——以通辽市各级人民法院“和合无讼”诉源治理模式为切入点

构建多元纠纷解决机制,是贯彻落实中国共产党第二十次全国代表大会报告提出的“在社会基层坚持和发展新时代‘枫桥经验’”的有力实践。通辽市各级人民法院是内蒙古自治区“人案矛盾”突出的法院之一,总结了做好基层调解的先进经验,形成了符合当地乡规民约的调解方法和解决纠纷的方式。推进多元纠纷解决机制建设,是提升辖区案件审理质效、展现地区法治建设和社会治理成效的必然选择。推进通辽市多元纠纷解决机制建设,加强矛盾纠纷源头治理,将社会纠纷化解于萌芽状态,对筑牢祖国北疆安全稳定屏障具有重要的意义,既是努力实现中国共产党第二十次全国代表大会决策部署的现实需要,又是贯彻落实中国共产党第二十次全国代表大会决策部署的重要举措。通辽市各级人民法院在多元纠纷解决机制工作中取得了一定的成绩和经验,以通辽市各级人民法院“和合无讼”诉源治理模式为切入点,对通辽市各级人民法院构建多元纠纷解决机制的情况、经验、存在的问题进行调查和深度剖析,以期为内蒙古其他地区进一步优化多元纠纷解决机制提供一定的参考。

论中国特色调解型行政复议模式

调解原则载入总则规定之中,是《行政复议法》修改的一大亮点,预示着中国特色调解型行政复议模式的生成。依法化解矛盾纠纷成为各级政府分内职责,行政争议实质化解成为新兴政法话语,复议化解行政争议主渠道地位的实现,共同构成了中国特色调解型行政复议模式的社会背景。就规范内涵而言,调解优先、应调尽调是新模式的基本特质,调解覆盖到各类型行政复议案件、贯穿于行政复议办理全过程、调解结案方式和效力多样化则是新模式的核心要义。中国特色调解型行政复议模式的有效运作,需要从加强行政复议人员能力建设、建立科学考评体系和充分借助体制内外力量等方面予以保障。中国特色调解型行政复议模式的发展,将重塑行政争议化解整体格局,进一步推进国家治理体系和治理能力的现代化。

功能导向下行政复议的价值取向与完善路径

行政复议制度具备解决纠纷、救济权利、内部监督三项功能,其中权利救济体现了行政复议化解行政争议主渠道作用的价值追求,以权利救济为首的多项功能共存,能够有效回应复议制度的实践需求,发挥主渠道作用。主渠道条款作为新行政复议法的立法目的,对具体制度设计具有统筹作用。从整体性视角出发,行政复议制度相比于行政诉讼具有制度性优势,这种优势是发挥行政复议化解行政纠纷的主渠道作用的基础。在制度修订过程中,应当进一步发挥行政复议的制度优势,进一步改革行政复议管辖制度、扩大受案范围、运用信息技术手段增强复议能力。

体育仲裁受理范围的争议问题与法律解释

就新《体育法》第92条体育仲裁受理范围的规定,当前理论与实务界存在限缩解释论和扩张解释论的分歧,争议焦点即是否将体育商事合同纠纷和体育领域工作合同纠纷纳入体育仲裁受理范围。体育自治规范的专业性和技术性意味着体育法律关系的纠纷解决需依赖专门的争端解决机制,这是解释体育仲裁受理范围的方法论基点。就国际体育仲裁法庭和体育发达国家的经验而言,体育仲裁受理范围包括体育商事合同纠纷,体育领域工作合同纠纷也未被明确排除出体育仲裁机构的管辖。从历史解释出发,体育仲裁受理范围的确定需要与国际经验接轨,保持开放空间。将体育商事合同纠纷和运动员工作合同纠纷纳入体育仲裁受理范围,内含于新《体育法》第92条的文义,有助于避免与新《体育法》第96条可能存在的体系冲突,符合新《体育法》及其“体育仲裁”章的立法目的。