•  
  •  
 

Review of law sciences

Abstract

The Republic of Uzbekistan currently is considering a draft law on mediation. With regard to this, the article presents a brief account of the history and use of alternative dispute resolution in the United States, it also offers a comparison of the draft law with principles that is considered to be best practices for successful ADR programs in the United States.

References

1. MP`s adopt draft "On mediation" in first reading. Available at https://uzreport.news/politics/mps-adopt-draft-on-mediation-in-first-reading (Jan. 8, 2018). 2. This article refers to ADR broadly to encompass the variety of processes used in the United States, as well as processes used in the Republic of Uzbekistan, including mediation and arbitration. 3. The Court-Annexed Arbitration Act of 1978: Hearings on S. 2253 Before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Congress, Second Session 22 (1978). 4. Robert J. Niemic, Donna Stienstra, Randall E. Ravitz. Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR. Federal Judicial Center (2011), 193pp. at p. 15.[Hereinafter “ADR Guide”) 5. Title IX of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702, as amended by Section 1 of Public Law 105-53), codified at 28 USCA §§ 651-58 6. Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-650 §103(a)-(b), 104 Stat. 5089, 5090-96 (hereinafter: CJRA). 7. Donna Stienstra, ADR in the Federal District Courts: An Initial Report, Federal Judicial Center. (Nov. 16, 2011). Available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/ADR2011.pdf (hereinafter: Stienstra, 2011). 8. Judicial Conference of the United States, The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 Final Report: Alternative Proposals for Reduction of Cost and Delay, Assessment of Principles, Guidelines, and Techniques 38 (1997). 9. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-315, 112 Stat. 2993 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651-658). 10. There are also other, less-utilized ADR processes used in the courts such as summary jury trials and summary bench trials. Some courts also use a joint process, such as a referral to both early neutral evaluation and mediation 11. ADR Guide, supra Note 6 at p. 14. 12. ADR Guide, supra Note at p. 15. 13. Stienstra, 2011, supra Note 9. 14. Id., at p5. 15. See Table S-17 — Matters Disposed of by U.S. Magistrate Judges During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2007 Through 2016, U.S. Courts, available at, http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_s17_0930.2016.pdf] 16. Stienstra, 2011, supra Note 9 at Appendix Two. 17. See ADR Policies and Procedures. Available at http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd /files/ADRPolicies.pdf. (Revised February 1, 2012). [Hereinafter “ADR Policies and Procedures”] 18. ADR Guide, supra Note 6 at p. 67. 19. ADR Policies and Procedures, supra Note 19 at P. 7-8. 20. Id. at p.8 21. Id. at p.10 22. Id. at p. 9 23. ADR Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. § 658(a). 24. Stienstra, 2011, supra Note 9 at p11 25. Id. at p12. Five courts did not provide information regarding compensation of neutrals for mediators. 26. Id. at p12; Additionally, a non-court neutral served pro bono on arbitration in one court, there was a tiered scheme of some pro bono and some paid arbitration time in one court, and one court did not respond to the survey. 27. ADR Act of 1998, § 652(d). See ADR Guide, supra Note 10 at p. 94. 28. Pub. L. 90–219, title I, §101, Dec. 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 664, codified at 28 U.S.C. §620 (b)(3). 29. ADR Guide, supra, note 6 at p. 67. 30. Aristotle, The Nicomachean ethics, 1103a.33. 31. Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. 32. Id. 33. Id., Bloom (Cognitive Domain) and Krathwohl (Affective Domain); Simpson, E.J. (Psychomotor Domain) (1966). The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain.

Share

COinS