Suchergebnisse

An analytic framework is developed for examining the processing of disputes in official bureaucracies. The model advances a social-constructionist concept of disputes & their processing that directs attention to how official intervention in activities actually creates disputes & gives them particular form. Primary focus is on official interventions that recognize & preserve a core element of conflict, & treat matters at issue as disputes. Following a critical review of the dispute transformation approach, the analysis shifts to consideration of the activities of public bureaucrats as outside parties intervening in, & disposing of, those disputes that come to their attention. It is suggested that the key to the process of intervention lies in when & how officials come to make inquiries about, understand, & ultimately align themselves in regard to dispute & the parties to it. 59 References. S. Millett

The prevailing insolvency dispute resolution mechanism is adjudication, which has significant shortcomings: the irresolvable common pool problem, disruption of business, and high litigation costs. The question is therefore whether insolvency disputes can be settled without (some extent of) adjudication. Namely, through alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which has become a counterweight to adjudication in insolvency disputes. In contrast to adjudication, ADR makes it possible to avoid the intrinsic shortcomings of adjudication. Firstly, it aims to reach a peaceful settlement resulting in an agreement between the debtor and the creditors; secondly, it aims to reconcile the principle interests in insolvency cases (continuation of the debtor's business and satisfying the creditors' claims); and thirdly, the dispute is not resolved in public. The major pro-debtor countries (the United States of America, France) have introduced ADR mechanisms for insolvency disputes which will serve as the foundation for the development of ADR in insolvency disputes in other countries.