世界知識產(chǎn)權(quán)組織 面向知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局和法院的替代性爭議解決機(jī)制 (ADR) 指南（英文）

WIPOAlternative

DisputeResolutionOptions

AGuideforIP

OfficesandCourts

WIPO1ADR

Arbitration

andMediation

center

i

Foreword

Conflictisaninevitablepartofdoingbusiness.AlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)processes,understoodheretoincludemediation,arbitrationandexpertdetermination,weredevelopedtoprovideeffectivejusticeforawiderangeofdisputesoutsidethecourts.

Specializinginintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,the

WIPOArbitrationand

MediationCenter

(WIPOCenter)offersADRservicesandtoolstofacilitatetime-andcost-effectivedisputeresolution.TheWIPOCenter’scaseloadcoversallareasofintellectualpropertyandtechnology,andincludesaspartieslargecompanies,smallandmedium-sizedenterprises(SMEs)andstartupsacrosssectors,artistsandinventors,research&development(R&D)centers,universities,andcopyrightmanagementorganizations.

Inleadingthedevelopmentofabalancedandeffectiveglobalintellectualpropertyecosystemtopromoteinnovationandcreativityforabetterandmoresustainablefuture,WIPOplacesparamountimportanceonitscollaborationwithIntellectualPropertyandCopyrightOffices(IPOs)aroundtheglobe.Inrecentyears,thesecollaborationshaveincreasinglyincludedanADRcomponent.BuildingonitsfirstADRcollaborationwiththeIntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingaporein2011,theWIPOCentertodaycooperateswithmorethan55IPOsaswellascourts.

Reflectingthegrowingscopeandnatureofthesecollaborativeefforts,thisGuidehighlightsWIPO’sexperienceinworkingwithIPOsandcourtstodevelopandenhancetheirADRservices,withthesharedgoalofreducingtheimpactoflegaldisputesininnovationandcreativeprocesses.

InadditiontoassessingthecurrentuseofADRtoresolveintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,thisthirdeditionoftheGuideinformsofthepracticalfeaturesoftailoredpublicADRprogramsdevelopedincollaborationwithWIPO,involvinginnovativeelementssuchasco-administrationschemes,onlinecasemanagementtools,trainingandoutreach,aswellasR&DmodelagreementsincludingADRclauses,inlinewithbroaderlegislativedevelopments.

WIPOwishestothankMs.JoyceTanforhercollaborationwiththeWIPOCenterinpreparingthisGuide,andtheKoreanIntellectualPropertyOffice(KIPO)foritsfinancialsupporttothepreparationandpromotionofthisGuideundertheWIPO-KIPOFunds-in-Trust.

MarcoM.Alemán

AssistantDirectorGeneral IPandInnovationEcosystemsSectorWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization

ii

Introduction

ThisGuideisdesignedtoprovideanoverviewofADRprocessesforintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes,aswelloftheexperienceoftheWIPOCenterinthecontextofpublicADRprograms,andtopresentoptionsforinterestedIPOs,courtsandotherbodiestopromoteandintegrateADRprocessesintotheirexistingservices.Assuch,withoutpurportinginanywaytobeauthoritativeorprescriptive,thisGuideisintendedtoserveasapracticalprimerforIPOs,courtsandotherbodiesconsideringthedevelopment,implementationand/orimprovementofADRprogramsdirectedatintellectualpropertyandtechnologydisputes.

Tothisend,

Chapter1

offersbackgroundinformationconcerningtheearlyuseandriseofADRaroundtheworld,followedin

Chapter2

byadescriptionofpotentialadvantagesofADRforintellectualpropertydisputes.

Chapter3

explainsinmoredetailthedifferentADRproceduresthatmaybeusedinintellectualpropertydisputes,while

Chapter4

outlinessomepractical

considerationsthatmayberelevantforIPOsandcourtsthatwishtoinstitutionalizesuchADRprocedures.Forthesubstantiveandproceduralimplementationofsuchprocedures,theGuideidentifiesasacore

interfacewith

existing

elementthe

regulations.

TheAppendicestotheGuideincludeanoverviewoftheWIPOCenter’scollaborationswithIPOsandCourts,aswellasrelatedmodeldocumentsthatmayserveasillustration.

Generallyspeaking,theuseofADRinintellectualpropertydisputesinthecontextofIPOorcourtproceedingsisarelativelyrecentdevelopment.ThisthirdeditionoftheGuideaimstocapturetheWIPOCenter’sgrowingexperienceinthisarea,includingrecenteffortstosupportSMEsinthiscontext.ItishopedthattheGuidewillproveausefulreferenceforIPOsandcourtsthatwishtoexploreorfurtherdeveloptheintegrationofADRmechanismsasanoptionalalternativetotheiradministrativeorjudicialproceedings.

iii

AbouttheAuthor

JoyceA.TanisanadvocateandsolicitoroftheSupremeCourtofSingapore,aregisteredpatentagentinSingapore,panelisttotheSingaporeDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicy,appointedtothe

WIPOListofNeutrals

andmemberofthe

WIPOArbitrationandMediationCenter

AdvisoryCommittee,

associatemediatoroftheSingaporeMediationCentre,notarypublicinSingapore,commissionerforoathsinSingaporeandisadmitted(asnon-practicingmember)totheRollofSolicitorsofEnglandandWales.

Ms.Tanhasanactivecross-borderanddomesticcorporateandcommercial

practice,withparticularstrengthsintechnology,communications,mediaandintellectualproperty-relatedtransactions,includingestablishmentofnewventuresandbusinessmodels,financingtransactionsinvolvingintellectualpropertyortechnology,privateequityinvestments,strategicalliancesandjointventures,acquisition,disposition,exploitationandlicensingoftechnologyandintellectualpropertyassets.ShehasbeeninvolvedinWIPOcasesasmediatorandpartycounsel,includinginthecontextoftrademarkproceedingsbeforetheIntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingapore(IPOS).

TableofContents

Foreword i

Introduction ii

AbouttheAuthor iii

Chapter1–HistoricalBackground 1

1.1OriginsandEarlyUsesofADR 1

1.1.1Mediation 1

1.1.2Arbitration 1

1.2EarlyInstitutionalizationandRegulationofADR 2

1.2.1Mediation 2

1.2.2Arbitration 2

1.3RiseofADRaroundtheWorld 3

1.3.1GrowthofADRasanAlternativetoLitigation 3

1.3.2GlobalizationofADR 4

1.3.3GeneralTrendsandLandscape 5

1.4DevelopmentofADRinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 6

1.4.1EarlyUsesandRegulations 6

1.4.2TheWIPOCenter 7

Chapter2-AdvantagesofADRinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 9

2.1PartyAutonomy 9

2.2SingleProcess;JurisdictionalNeutrality 9

2.3IndependentSpecializedExpertise 10

2.4Simplicity;Flexibility 10

2.5TimeSavings 11

2.6CostSavings 12

2.7Confidentiality 12

2.8Finality 12

2.9Enforceability 13

2.10DiverseSolutions 13

2.11SpecificAdvantagesforIPOs 14

Chapter3-ADRProceduresUsedinIntellectualPropertyDisputes 15

3.1GeneralTrendsandLandscape 15

3.2ApproachestoADR 16

3.2.1Assistance-Based 16

3.2.2Recommendation-Based 16

3.2.3Adjudication-Based 16

3.3Mediation 17

3.3.1Introduction 17

3.3.2MediationAgreement 17

3.3.3AppointmentandRoleofMediator 18

3.3.4ConductofMediation 19

3.3.5EnforcementofMediationSettlement 20

3.3.6AdministrationofMediation 20

3.3.7ModeofSubmissiontoMediation 22

3.4ExpertDetermination 23

3.4.1Introduction 23

3.4.2ExpertDeterminationAgreement 24

3.4.3AppointmentandRoleofExpert 25

3.4.4ConductofExpertDetermination 25

3.4.5AdministrationofExpertDetermination 25

3.4.6SubmissiontoExpertDeterminationProceedingsatIPOs 26

3.5Arbitration 26

3.5.1Introduction 26

3.5.2ArbitrationAgreement 27

3.5.3LegalFrameworkofArbitration 27

3.5.4ArbitrationRules 28

3.5.5AppointmentandRoleofArbitralTribunal 29

3.5.6ConductoftheArbitration 29

3.5.7ArbitralAwards 30

3.5.8AdministrationofArbitration 31

3.5.9ModeofSubmissiontoArbitration 31

Chapter4-InstitutionalizingADRforIntellectualPropertyDisputes 33

4.1Introduction 33

4.2OpportunityforADR 33

4.3InterfacewithIPO,CourtorOtherProceedings 36

4.4ChoiceofADRProcess 37

4.5SubmissiontoADRProcess 37

4.6Finance 38

4.6.1GovernmentFunding 38

4.6.2AdministrativeFees 38

4.6.3PractitionerFees 39

4.7“Buy-in” 39

4.7.1Process 39

4.7.2RolesofKeyPlayers 40

4.8ConsultationandFeedback 41

4.9Outreach 42

4.10ADRPractitioners 43

4.10.1Training 43

4.10.2QualityStandards 43

4.10.3Availability 44

4.11LegalFramework 44

4.11.1LegalFrameworkandSystem 45

4.11.2EnablingLawsandRegulations 45

4.12AdministrativeInfrastructure 46

4.13PublicConfidence 46

4.13.1ImpartialityandIndependenceofNeutrals 46

4.13.2ConfidentialityofInformation 47

4.13.3TransparencyofProceeding 47

4.13.4RealizationofAdvantages 47

4.14PeriodicReview 48

AppendixA-WIPOCenterCollaborationwithIPOsandCourts 49

A.1Overview 49

A.2ExamplesofWIPOCenterCollaborationwithIPOffices 59

A.2.1RaisingAwarenessofADROptions 59

A.2.1.1IPAustralia 59

A.2.1.2HungarianIntellectualPropertyOffice(HIPO) 60

A.2.1.3RomanianCopyrightOffice(ORDA) 61

A.2.1.4IntellectualPropertyOfficeoftheRepublicofSerbia 62

A.2.1.5WIPOADRforSMEs 63

A.2.1.6WIPOTechnologyandInnovationSupportCenter

Program(TISC) 64

A.2.2CaseAdministration 65

A.2.2.1SuperintendenceofIndustryandCommerce(SIC) 65

A.2.2.2NationalInstituteofCopyrightofMexico(INDAUTOR) 66

A.2.2.3OfficeofIndustrialandCommercialPropertyofMorocco

(OMPIC) 67

A.2.2.4NigerianCopyrightCommission(NCC) 68

A.2.2.5IntellectualPropertyOfficeofthePhilippines(IPOPHL) 69

A.2.2.6PatentOfficeoftheRepublicofPoland(PPO) 71

A.2.2.7MinistryofCulture,SportsandTourism(MCST)ofthe

RepublicofKorea 73

A.2.2.8IntellectualPropertyOfficeofSingapore(IPOS) 74

A.2.2.9UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO) 76

A.2.3ADROptionsinR&DModelAgreements 77

A.2.3.1SpanishPatentandTrademarkOffice(OEPM) 77

A.3ExamplesofWIPOCenterCourtsCollaboration 78

A.3.1SupremePeople’sCourtofChina(SPC)andShanghaiHighPeople’s

CourtofChina 78

A.3.2MunichRegionalCourt 79

AppendixB-WIPOCenterReferences 81

B.1WIPOADRRules 81

B.2WIPOScheduleofFeesandCosts 81

B.2.1Mediation 81

B.2.2ExpeditedArbitrationandArbitration 82

B.2.3ExpertDetermination 82

B.3ModelWIPOADRClausesandAgreements 83

B.3.1WIPOClauseGenerator 84

B.3.2UnilateralRequestforWIPOMediation 85

B.4WIPOOnlineCaseAdministrationTools 86

B.5SpecializedWIPOADRServicesforSpecificSectors 87

1

Chapter1–HistoricalBackground

1.1OriginsandEarlyUsesofADR

1.1.1Mediation

Mediationisaninformalprocedureinwhichaneutralintermediary,themediator,assiststhepartiesinreachingasettlementoftheirdispute,basedontheirrespectiveinterests,asfurtherexplainedin

Chapter3.3.

Ithasitsrootsintraditionalcommunitypracticesfoundincountriesaroundtheworld.Theseearlymediationpracticesgenerallyreliedonarespectedcommunityleader,whowouldprovideguidancebasedoncommunityvaluesandpersuadethedisputingpartiestoamicablyresolvetheirdifferences.

1

TraditionalmediationpracticeshavebeendocumentedinAlbania,

2

Burundi,

3

China,

4

Japan,

5

thePhilippines,theRepublicofKoreaandSingapore.

6

MediationalsocontributedtothedevelopmentoflegalsystemsinRomeandAnglo-SaxonEngland.InancientRome,aversionofjudicialmediationappearstohavebeenthepreferredmeansofresolvingcivildisputes;thisapproachhadanimportantinfluenceoncivilprocedureincontinentalEurope,particularlyinAustria,GermanyandSwitzerland.

7

InAnglo-SaxonEngland,judgesandarbitratorsencouragedpartiestonegotiatesettlementagreementsafterissuingtheirjudgmentonthemerits,butbeforethejudgmentwasprocedurallyfinalized.Mediationwasusedintheseearlylegalsystemstopreserveongoingrelationshipsbetweenlitigants,andtoeffectpeacefulandenduringresolutionstodisputes.

8

1.1.2Arbitration

Arbitration,explainedinmoredetailin

Chapter3.5

,isaprocedureinwhichthepartiessubmittheirdisputetooneormorechosenarbitrators,forabindingandfinaldecision(award)basedontheparties’respectiverightsandobligations.Arbitrationdevelopedoutoftheadjudicativeprocessusedbymerchantstoregulatetheirdisputes.

9

Merchantswouldbringtheirdisputesbeforeatribunaloffellowmerchants,whichwouldrenderadecisionbasedoncustomary

1Ho-BengChia,JooEngLee-PartridgeandChee-LeongChong,‘Traditionalmediationpractices:Arewethrowingthebabyoutwiththebathwater?’(2004)Vol.21ConflictResolutionQuaterly451,453-455.

2AyseBetulCelikandAlmaShkreli,‘AnAnalysisofReconciliatoryMediationinNorthernAlbania:TheRoleofCustomaryMediators’(2010)62Europe-AsiaStudies885.

3UNESCO,‘WomenandPeaceinAfrica:Casestudiesontraditionalconflictresolutionpractices’(2003)

/images/0013/001332/133274e.pdf.

4JoelLeeandTehHweeHweeeds,‘AnAsianPerspectiveonMediation’(AcademyPublishing2009)4.

5RondaRobertsCallisterandJamesAWall,‘JapaneseCommunityandOrganizationalMediation’(1997)

Vol.41,TheJournalofConflictResolution,311,313.

6JoelLeeandTehHweeHweeeds,ibid.4,4.

7ChristianBühring-Uhle,LarsKirchhoffandGabrieleScherer,‘ArbitrationandMediationinInternationalBusiness’(KluwerLawInternational2006)177.

8ValerieASanchez,‘TowardsaHistoryofADR:TheDisputeProcessingContinuuminAnglo-SaxonEnglandandToday’(1996)Vol.11TheOhioStateJournalonDisputeResolution1,3,

/bitstream/handle/1811/79734/OSJDR_V11N1_001.pdf?sequence=1.

9EdwardManson,TheCityofLondonChamberofArbitration(1893)9LQR86,87.

2

commercialpractices.Althoughtheseprivatesystemsofadjudicationdidnotfeatureformallegalprocesses,theywereconsideredascrediblesourcesofcommercialjustice.

10

Earlyarbitrationpracticeshavebeendocumentedinpre-IslamicArabiaandinmedievalWesternEurope.

11

MaritimearbitrationwaspracticedincountriesalongtheWesternandAtlanticcoastsofEuropeinaround1200,

12

andrecordsofmaritimearbitrationsdatingbackto1229havebeenfoundinVenice.

13

Arbitrationbecameapopularalternativetolitigationformerchantsbecauseitwasasystemofself-regulationthatprovidedquick,economicalandinformeddecisions.

14

1.2EarlyInstitutionalizationandRegulationofADR

1.2.1Mediation

IncountriessuchasAustralia,

15

NewZealand

16

andtheUnitedStates,

17

mediationservicesandregulationswereestablishedintheearly20thcenturytoaddresslabordisputes.Labordisputesinthelate19thand20thcenturieswereoftencostly,disruptiveandevenviolent.Inresponse,governmentauthoritiesestablishedlaborconciliationservicesandlaws,whichenabledtheextensiveuseofmediationbetweenlaborunionsandemployers.Theselaborconciliationservicesandlawsweresuccessfulbecausetheyprovidedthenecessaryadministrativeframeworktoaddresslabordisputesswiftlyandpeacefullyonahithertounimaginedscale.

18

1.2.2Arbitration

Arbitrationinstitutionsandregulationswerefirstformalizedinthe18thand19thcenturiestopromoteandfacilitatetheuseofarbitration.Broadlyspeaking,arbitrationinstitutionsweremoresuccessfulwhenarbitrationlawsthatfacilitatedtheenforcementofarbitrationagreementsandawardswerealreadyinplace.

19

Forexample,arbitrationonlybegantothriveintheUnitedStatesaftertheUnitedStatesArbitrationActwasenactedin1925,eventhougharbitrationinstitutionshadbeenestablishedasearlyasin1768.

20

IntheUnitedKingdom,arbitrationlegislationwasfirstenactedin1698andculminatedintheArbitrationActof1889.

10CharlesSHaightJr,‘MaritimeArbitrationTheAmericanExperience’inACollectionoftheCedricBarclayLectures:ICMAX-ICMAXV(SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCenter2006).

11AlanRedfern,MHunteret.al.,‘LawandPracticeofInternationalCommercialArbitration’(4thed,Sweet&Maxwell2004)para1-04.

12WilliamTetley,‘MarineCargoClaims’(4thed,éditionsYvonBlais2009)1417.

13FabrizioMarrella,‘UnityandDiversityinInternationalArbitration:TheCaseofMaritimeArbitration’(2005)AmericanUniversityInternationalLawReview,Vol20,1055,1058

/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=auilr.

14EarlSWolaver,‘TheHistoricalBackgroundofCommercialArbitration’(1934)83UPaLRev132,144.15OdeRFoenander,‘TheNewConciliationandArbitrationActinAustralia’(1929)19Int’lLabRev151.

16JudyDellandPeterFranks,‘MediationandCollectiveBargaininginNewZealand’(MinistryofBusiness,Innovation&Employment,2009).

17EdgarLWarren,‘TheConciliationService:V-JDaytoTaft-Hartley’(1948)1ILRReview351.

18MichaelWallin,‘LabourAdministration:OriginsandDevelopment’(1969)100Int’lLabRev51,72.19FrankDEmerson,‘HistoryofArbitrationPracticeandLaw’(1970)19ClevStLR155,158-159.

20CharlesSHaightJr,‘MaritimeArbitrationTheAmericanExperience’inACollectionoftheCedricBarclayLectures:ICMAX-ICMAXV(SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCenter2006).

3

Arbitrationprosperedundertheauspicesofthislegislativeregime,

21

eventhougharbitrationinstitutionswerenotestablisheduntil1892.

22

Whileenablinglawsarecriticaltothedevelopmentofarbitration,arbitrationinstitutionscanthemselvesplayanimportantroleintheenactmentandpromotionoftheselaws.In1923,theInternationalCourtofArbitrationoftheInternationalChamberofCommercewasestablishedtoprovideanarbitrationinstitutionwithasufficiently“international”characterforthefledglinginternationalarbitrationindustry.

23

Subsequently,theInternationalCourtofArbitrationplayedamajorroleinthepromulgationofthe1958ConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(NewYorkConvention),whichiswidelyconsideredasthemostimportantmultilateraltreatyoninternationalarbitration.

24

1.3RiseofADRaroundtheWorld

1.3.1GrowthofADRasanAlternativetoLitigation

TheADR‘boom’inthe1970sand1980swasspurredinlargepartbyarisingdissatisfactionwithlitigation.

25

Asidefrombeingexorbitant,time-consumingandacrimonious,itwasevidentthatlitigationcouldalsobeanenormousgamble.

26

Further,therewasanapprehension,particularlyamongsomeacademicsandlegalpractitionersoftheadventofa“l(fā)itigationexplosion”,whereoverly-litigioussocietieswouldoverwhelmcourtswithunnecessaryandcostlylawsuits.

27

TheseconcernsledProfessorFrankSandertodeveloptheconceptofthe“multi-doorcourthouse”,whichhepresentedatthe1976PoundConference.The“multi-doorcourthouse”wouldprovidearangeofdisputeresolutionservicesandcourtofficialswouldreferpartiestothemostappropriateprocessfortheircase.Mediationandarbitrationwouldplaykeyrolesinthe“multi-doorcourthouse”asalternativestolitigation.

28

ProfessorSander’spresentationiswidelyregardedasa“bigbang”momentintheglobalADRmovementforthreereasons.Firstly,itpopularizedtheideathatdisputesshouldbechanneledintothemostappropriatedisputeresolutionmechanism.Secondly,itpromotedtheadvantagesofalternativestolitigation,suchasmediationandarbitration.

29

Finally,the“multi-doorcourthouse”provedtobeaneffectivemechanismforfacilitatingaccesstoADRservicesandtraditionalcourtprocesses.FollowingthePoundConference,“multi-doorcourthouses”were

21SidneyPSimpson,‘SpecificEnforcementofArbitrationContracts’(1934)83UPaLRev160,165,

/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8695&context=penn_law_review.

22TheLondonCourtofInternationalArbitrationwasinauguratedastheCityofLondonChamberof

Arbitrationin1892.SeeEdwardManson,‘TheCityofLondonChamberofArbitration’(1893)9LQR86.

23EmmanuelGaillard,BertholdGoldmanandJohnSavage,‘Fouchard,Gaillard,GoldmanonInternational

CommercialArbitration’(KluwerLawInternational1999)174.

24AlanRedfern,MHunteret.al.,ibid.11,1-05.

25BillMaurer,‘TheDisunityofFinance:AlternativePracticestoWesternFinance’inKarinKnorrCetinaandAlexPreda(eds)TheOxfordHandbookoftheSociologyofFinance(OxfordUniversityPress2012)413.

26KevinMLemley,‘I’llMakeHimAnOfferHeCan’tRefuse:AProposedModelForAlternativeDisputeResolutioninIntellectualPropertyDisputes’(2004)37AkronLRev287,311-312,

/dotAsset/727495.pdf.

27MarcGalanter,‘TheDayAftertheLitigationExplosion’(1986)46MdLRev3,5,

/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2633&context=mlr.

28FrankEASander,‘VarietiesofDisputeProcessing’inALeoLevinandRussellRWheeler(eds),ThePoundConference:PerspectivesonJusticeintheFuture(WestGroup1979)65,83.

29MichaelLMoffitt,‘BeforetheBigBang:TheMakingofanADRPioneer’(2006)22NegotiationJ435.

4

implementedintheUnitedStates,

30

andtheirsuccessspurredtheestablishmentofsimilarinitiativesinforexampleAustralia,

31

Canada,

32

theNetherlands,

33

Nigeria

34

andSingapore.

35

1.3.2GlobalizationofADR

Sincethe1980s,ADRhasachievedanunprecedentedprominenceintheinternationalcommunity,andADRprogramshaveproliferatedonaglobalscale.

36

TheattractiveforceofADRcanbeattributedtothesimplefactthatithassomethingforeveryone:anadditionalchannelfortheprovisionofaccesstojustice,therebyofferingadministrativereliefforthecourtsandpublicagencies;apotentiallyquick,inexpensiveandflexibleavenuetoresolvedisputesforthedisputants;andagrowthindustryandanincreasinglyprofitablebusinessforADRpractitionersandinstitutions.

Broadlyspeaking,ADRprogramshavebeendevelopedbycourtsandlegalagenciestocomplementandsupportlegalprocesses.

37

BychannelingappropriatedisputesintoADRprocesses,“multi-doorcourthouses”reducebacklog,acceleratecasedispositionandfacilitateaccesstojusticebyreducingeconomicandproceduralobstaclestoresolvingdisputes.

38

Court-connectedADRprogramsalsoplacecourtsinabetterpositiontoaddressdisputesthatareill-suitedtoadversariallitigation.

39

Forexample,familycourtswereearlyadoptersofmediationprogramsbecauseoftheemotionalandinterpersonalcharacteristicsoffamilydisputes.

40

Beyondjudicialefforts,thegrowthofADRhasbeendrivenbyastrongdemandfromtheinternationalbusinesscommunity.ADRprocessesareappropriateforbusinessesbecausetheycanprovidetimeandcostsavings,aswellascommerciallyusefuloutcomes:arbitration

30‘Transcript:ADialogueBetweenProfessorsFrankSanderandMarianaHernandezCrespo’(2008)5UStThomasLJ665,673,

/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=ustlj.

31RobertFrench,‘PerspectivesonCourtAnnexedAlternativeDisputeResolution’(HighCourtofAustralia?

July27,2009)

.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-

justices/frenchcj/frenchcj27july09.pdf.

32TrevorCWFarrow,‘CivilJustice,PrivatizationandDemocracy’(UniversityofTorontoPress2014)73.

33AnnieJdeRooandRobertWJagtenberg,‘TheDutchLandscapeofCourt-EncouragedMediation’in

NadjaMarieAlexander(eds),GlobalTrendsinMediation(KluwerLawInternational2006)288.

34OyeniyiAjigboye,‘TheConceptofMulti-DoorCourthouseinNigeria:RethinkingFrankSander’sConcept’(SocialScienceResearchNetwork,November16,2014)

/profile/Ajigboye_Oyeniyi/publication/268333752_The_ConceptofMulti-

Door_Courthouse_in_Nigeria_Rethinking_Frank_Sander’s_Concept/links/54691b7d0cf2397f782d6d9c/Th

e-Concept-of-Multi-Door-Courthouse-in-Nigeria-Rethinking-Frank-Sanders-Concept.

35MarvinBay,ShobaNairandAsanthiMendi‘TheIntegrationofAlternativeDisputeResolutionWithintheSubordinateCourts’AdjudicationProcess’(2004)16SAcLJ501.

36AnthonyWanis-St.John,‘ImplementingADRinTransitioningStates:LessonsLearnedfromPractice’

(2000)5Harv.NegotiationL.Rev.339,340,

/wp-

content/uploads/sites/22/2012/04/IMPLEMENTING_ADR_IN_TRANSITIONING_STATES_LESSONS_LE

ARNED_FROM_PRACTICE.doc.

37LarryRayandAnneLClare,‘TheMulti-DoorCourthouseIdea-BuildingtheCourthouseoftheFutureToday’(1985)1OhioStJonDispResol7,12.

38ScottBrown,Christin