Privatising dispute resolutions and its limits- alternative dispute resolutions or state courts?

by, Ledina Mandija

Abstract

Every government should provide to its citizens means for the adequate protection of their individual rights and freedoms. The means are the courts to which the citizens have the right of access and the state has to pay for the civil justice and manage to reform the court system. Nowadays, consumers and investors around the world try to resolve their disputes in a speedy and effective manner. Consequently, civil justice plays a crucial role in the life and culture of a state and provides the legal structure for the economy to operate effectively and at the same time has the function of providing authoritative and peaceful resolution of justice enabling social justice, economic stability and social order. Currently, consumers and investors are requesting an impartial and independent court to give effective solutions for their internal disputes or cross-border disputes. Therefore, states around the world are involved in periodical reforms, spending a lot of monies that usually are paid from the taxpayers. Despite the continuing request for improvement, consumers still have difficulties in accessing speedy and effective solution to their disputes through a fair trial under the constitutional principles or international law. Therefore, around the world the question arises, whether state authorities would not be more suitable guarantors of the public interest than law firms and other profited-oriented operators in the market.Consequently, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been introduced as a mechanism,