대안적(代案的) 분쟁해결제도(ADR)의 경제학 -환경분쟁조정제도에 대한 평가를 중심으로-
Economics of Alternative Dispute Resolution -Focusing on "Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act"-

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Issue Date
서울대학교 법학연구소
법학, Vol.47 No1 pp.13-75
대안적 분쟁해결제도소송유형환경분쟁조정분쟁해결비용행정형 ADR법원형 ADR사전적 유인운용비용오판비용환경소송
When individuals need to resolve their disputes with other individuals, they
may often go not only to courts for trial but also to alternative methods of
dispute resolution (“ADR”). Drawing upon a few recent studies, this article
provides some economic explanation about why individuals make use of ADR
instead of trial and/or settlement. By examining what the social interest is in
ADR, it also provides a useful reference point by which one can evaluate the
ADR system the “Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act” has developed to cope
with complicated environmental disputes.
Part I begins with defining the characteristics of environmental disputes that
make environmental litigation less frequent. Due to the tendency of
“under-litigation” involving environmental disputes, ADR is particularly needed
for environmental disputes. An ADR system aiming at environmental disputes
needs to be designed so as to i) minimize the total cost of resolving disputes,
and simultaneously ii) to engage as many parties involved as possible and make
an ideal communication structure where the parties involved can provide each
other with the relevant information(Part II). Part III looks over the cost structure
of ADR. The dispute resolution costs of ADR consist of ADR-using
cost(“operation cost”) and misjudgment cost(“error cost”). To save the former, it
is necessary to trade off the latter. Accordingly, an ideal ADR system must be
such that the sum of both can be minimized. In general, ADR brings about less
operation costs than a trial before the courts. Therefore the success of ADR
depends upon how much it can minimize error costs. If one can design an ideal...
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Law/Law School (법과대학/대학원)The Law Research Institute (법학연구소) 법학법학 Volume 47, Number 1/4 (2006)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.