论文部分内容阅读
当前ADR在美国获得了广泛的运用,但同时也争议不断。ADR的反对者欧文·费斯教授反对ADR的理由中最有力的一条就是ADR使得法院失去了阐明和践行“公共价值”的机会。站在费斯对立面的学者更多,首先费斯式的“福利国家观”的公共价值概念难以获得普遍认同;其次费斯认为只有法院才是阐明和践行公共价值的最佳选择也受到了众多的反驳;再者ADR所建构的众多主体都可以参与的平等交流平台可能比费斯主张的法院单向指令更能产生明智的价值选择。我们从这些争论中可以了解ADR的复杂侧面,启发我们在实践中要慎重平衡各个价值。
The current ADR in the United States has been widely used, but also controversial. One of the most compelling reasons ADR’s opponents, Irving Fiss, oppose ADR is that ADR has given courts the opportunity to clarify and practice “public value.” There are more scholars standing on the opposite side of Fisch. First, the concept of public value of Fisichelle’s “Welfare State” is difficult to be universally accepted. Second, Fiss believes that only the courts are the best choice for clarifying and practicing public values Which is subject to many refutations. Furthermore, the platform of equal exchange that many subjects constructed by ADR can participate in may yield a sensible value choice more than the one-way court order Fis advocates. From these debates, we can understand the complexities of ADR and inspire us to carefully balance the values in practice.