<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' xmlns:oai_dc='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xsi:schemaLocation='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd'>
<dc:creator>Buruiană, I.V.</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2019-12-27</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang='en'><p>The present study attempts to take stock of the current position on this question, and to demonstrate that the answer varies depending on the area in which one resorts to ADR (alternative dispute resolution mechanisms). In matters where parties can freely dispose of their rights, the principle of freedom of contract must prevail, save that the procedural purpose of dispute resolution agreements will naturally affect their regime. Recently, in international arbitration practice are used multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses which provide some preliminary steps of temptation to solve dispute superior to address them to arbitration. These kinds of the clauses are perfectly lawful.</p></dc:description>
<dc:source>Relaţii internaţionale. Plus 16 (2) 360-367</dc:source>
<dc:subject>alternative dispute resolution mechanisms</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>mediation</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>arbitration</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses</dc:subject>
<dc:title>Alternative methods of dispute resolution in private law</dc:title>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>