Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

论和谐社会与我国行政纠纷解决制度的完善

建立有效的矛盾或者纠纷解决机制,对于建设和谐社会具有重要意义,尤其是行政纠纷,涉及到政府与公众,公共利益与个人利益之间的关系,涉及到法治的建设。必须从构建和谐社会的内在要求出发,对现行的行政纠纷解决制度进行变革和完善。司法程序的局限性和现代纷争的特征都决定了司法外纷争解决制度的重要性。借鉴西方国家司法外行政纠纷解决制度的合理内核,加强我国司法外行政纠纷解决制度的建设,以促进我国行政救济制度的完善。     

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance Among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK

Attitudes toward legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance, and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.     

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners,Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

Social scientists have long investigated the social, cultural, and psychological forces that shape perceptions of fairness. A vast literature on procedural justice advances a central finding: the process by which a dispute is played out is central to people's perceptions of fairness and their satisfaction with dispute outcomes. There is, however, one glaring gap in the literature. In this era of mass incarceration, studies of how the incarcerated weigh procedural justice versus substantive justice are rare. This article addresses this gap by drawing on unique quantitative and qualitative data, including face‐to‐face interviews with a random sample of men incarcerated in three California prisons and official data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Our mixed‐methods analysis reveals that these prisoners privilege the actual outcomes of disputes as their barometer of justice. We argue that the dominance of substantive outcomes in these men's perceptions of fairness and in their dispute satisfaction is grounded in, among other things, the high stakes of the prison context, an argument that is confirmed by our data. These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice, but show the power of institutional context to structure perceptions of and responses to fairness, one of the most fundamental principles of social life.     

Negotiation, Power in Conciliation, and Review of Compensation Claims

Workers Compensation claims are not interpersonal disputes. Almost always they are disputes between individuals and corporations. Compensation insurers are "repeat players" in the system. Workers are often "one–shotters" who have little or infrequent contact with the system. Power inequality between the worker, employer, insurer, and those who are required to facilitate negotiations and resolve and settle disputes under compensation legislation are matters of considerable importance. This paper examines the effects of the implementation, in 1993, of informal dispute resolution processes in the Western Australian workers compensation system under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981(WA), which excluded lawyers from the process. It argues that preexisting power imbalances have been aggravated by these procedural changes, and in particular, by the exclusion of legal practitioners from the dispute resolution process. The issues raised herein have general application to most workers compensation systems.     

纠纷解决观在刑事司法中的引入

解决纠纷是司法制度的原初和首要功能。纠纷解决观是一种以承认纠纷的客观存在和不可回避为前提,将解决纠纷视为重要任务以防范纠纷可能带来的各种负面影响的观念。纠纷解决观尚未在我国刑事司法制度中确立,其在刑事司法中的引入具有多方面的必要性和可能性。纠纷解决观的引入与刑事诉讼控制犯罪与保障人权相统一的目的并不矛盾。我国刑事司法制度应在纠纷解决观的指导下进行相应的完善。     

Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

程序正义概念与标准的再认识

程序正义是一种法律理念 ,即任何法律决定必须经过正当的程序 ,而这种程序的正当性体现为特定的主体根据法律规定和法律授权所作出的与程序有关的行为。程序正义的标准最值得注意的是程序规范的严格遵守和主体评价两个方面。既不能以实体的正义作为参照去评判程序的正义 ,也不能以程序的正义作为基准去决定实体的正义 ,实质正义才是唯一的选择。     

Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.

     

The importance of teaching dispute resolution in a twenty-first-century law school

Civil justice reviews over the past 20 years have encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and particularly mediation. Mediation is arguably now becoming more mainstream in terms of dispute resolution process choice. In some instances law changes have been introduced requiring parties in dispute to consider using mediation; similarly, lawyers have an ethical responsibility to provide advice to their clients about the range of dispute resolution processes available. What is lacking however is a corresponding appreciation of the changing attitudes to the teaching of dispute resolution in the majority of UK law schools, where the promotion of adversarialism within the curriculum appears to remain the focus as the primary and only method of dispute resolution. The article argues that this is unreflective of current attitudes and thinking towards dispute resolution in most common law countries, where litigation is no longer necessarily the primary dispute resolution process of choice. Whilst there was token appreciation of the importance of mediation advocacy and its inclusion recommended within the Bar Practice Training Course (BPTC), the recent Legal Education and Training Review was silent on any suggestions about the inclusion of dispute resolution based curriculum content at any stage of legal education in England and Wales. The article will explore the historical development of lawyers’ attitudes to dispute resolution within the civil justice arena and academics’ teaching of curriculum associated with it in UK law schools. The article will pose questions on why recent legal history suggests that law schools should now perhaps take a more socio-legal approach to their curriculum content and embrace the teaching of dispute resolution as a defined subject area for the twenty-first-century law school.     

完善仲裁司法监督制度的现实价值评析——以构建多元化纠纷解决机制为视角

多元化纠纷解决机制强调各种纠纷解决方式相互促进,协调发展,而仲裁作为ADR中制度化最强的方式,它与诉讼的关系成为多元化纠纷解决机制中的一大亮点。因此,理顺仲裁与司法的关系,完善仲裁司法监督制度,对构建多元化纠纷解决机制的意义重大。     

程序性证明——一个证据法学不可缺失的概念

诉讼证明过程要符合程序正义,蕴涵程序正义理念的司法审查原则与程序性辩护的理论建构及其制度化最终要以程序性问题的证明为依托,现有的证明理论无力回应,证据法学理论也因此面临着困境。程序性证明是指在刑事诉讼过程中,控、辩一方或双方依法针对各自的程序性请求或程序性争议,在中立的裁判者面前展开的论证或说服活动。程序性证明的主体由控、辩、裁三方构成,各方主体中最为重要的分别是指控方中负责案件侦查的侦查人员、辩护方中的犯罪嫌疑人与裁判方中的侦查法官;程序性证明的对象是程序性请求的理由和程序性争议;程序性证明贯穿于刑事诉讼的整个过程;程序性证明的展开具有灵活性。程序性证明的提出,不仅有助于提升证据法学应有的理论品格,还有助于捍卫和发展"法律真实说"。     

Flexibility and Authority: Resolving Labor Disputes in A County Government in Western China

Existing literature regards flexibility and authority as key characteristics of informal justice. We further contend that the combination of the two is crucial for informal justice to be effective. We investigate the process of dispute resolution by a Chinese labor agency. Following the life cycles of a sample of 810 labor disputes, we find that this informal justice forum was efficient and effective, made possible by the combination of flexibility and authority. Flexibility means that the agency attracts certain types of cases that are usually screened out of the formal legal system and that agency officials use “informal,” hence flexible, techniques. Authority means that the administrative agency possesses additional powers over the disputants; hence, the disputants are under pressure to follow its suggestions and decisions. A comparative analysis of various cases of informal justice reinforces the importance of combining flexibility and authority. We further demonstrate that flexibility without authority is insufficient and that some informal justice forums are effective because they enjoy both.     

Dispute Resolution in a Worker Cooperative: Formal Procedures and Procedural Justice

While most research on workplace grievance resolution focuses on hierarchical settings, this study examines grievance resolution in a worker cooperative, a workplace mutually owned and democratically managed. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews and observations, this research explores how workers' perceptions of procedural justice influence their anticipated grievance strategies. Despite working side by side in the same organization, both men and women had very different experiences regarding procedural justice and dispute resolution. For men, working at a cooperative meant informal dispute resolution strategies, while the women cited the cooperative identity as empowering them to use formal grievance procedures.     

The use of technology in the transformation of business dispute resolution

The use of technology in dispute resolution mechanism can be viewed from two perspectives: first, as an aid in the conventional dispute resolution system, and second, as an online dispute resolution mechanism via the Internet. Online dispute resolution (ODR) is transforming the way disputes are being resolved, in particular, in business to consumer (B2C) transactions. ODR offers a more successful means of resolving e-commerce disputes. In fact, there is a new move by the Malaysian judiciary to transform its court system. Previously, the judiciary has been very conventional in its administration of justice, and the system is said to be slow and outdated. The court system in Malaysia has been frequently criticised because of its dilatoriness in resolving disputes, resulting in a large backlog of cases. To overcome these problems, the judiciary has introduced a new system called the e-court. New methods including as e-filing, electronic case management, queue management, and court recording and transcribing form the complete e-court mechanism.     

行政公益诉讼诉前程序与行政争议实质化解决

行政公益诉讼所解决问题属于行政争议的范畴,其与一般的行政争议只是在争议主体、争议的问题以及争议的解决程序上有所区别,但究其本质,其是对行政权力行使进行有效监督的重要途径,在一定程度上弥补了对于行政机关不作为行为的监督不足的情况。从行政公益诉讼的“双阶构造”理论出发,针对当前实践中存在的诉前程序实施领域模糊、案件处理困境以及监督机制缺位的问题,基于检察视野,对行政公益诉讼诉前程序扩大提请主体和提请受案范围、构建诉前程序分流模式以及落实诉前程序的后续监督机制提出相关的完善建议。此外,行政权的行使有其独立性,因此通过检察权对行政权进行监督时,公益诉讼具有与其他行政诉讼不同的诉讼构造,但监督的目的在于公益的保护和实现,因此除了一般的裁判解决外,通过诉前的督促程序,促使行政主体依法履职尽责,是公益诉讼制度发挥其应有价值的实现途径之一。     

迈向“过程导向信任”的刑事死因鉴定争议解决机制

中国当今刑事鉴定争议频发。其中当事人与办案机关鉴定冲突最剧烈、不满手段最多样,且其社会影响最大者,目前主要聚集在部分死因鉴定领域。该类鉴定争议既滋生过度重复鉴定,更促使部分当事人上访、闹事,一度还以此衍生出暴力性群体事件。死因鉴定争议的发生,主要源于影响鉴定意见可信性的一系列因素,而非仅因为、甚或主要基于鉴定意见的客观可靠性。因此,为重塑中国刑事死因鉴定的公信力,必须走向从实践出发的法律研究与制度建构立场,以回应办案部门创建、并亟须理论提炼与立法改良的“过程导向信任”的鉴定争议解决机制。其关键措施,是通过死因鉴定程序的开放性与当事人双方（包括其聘请的法医专家）的充分参与性,从而实现鉴定意见的可信性或当事人可接受性;并以此领域的鉴定争议解决为突破口,进行鉴定制度改革,以提升中国整个刑事司法鉴定的公信力与可信性。     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

Participation as a Framework for Analysing Consumers’ Experiences of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

This article argues that an analytic framework based on participation is useful for analysing consumer experiences of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), providing a complementary approach to analyses drawing on procedural justice theory. The argument is developed by applying McKeever's ‘ladder of legal participation’ (LLP)¹ to a qualitative data set consisting of interviews with United Kingdom consumers. The article concludes that applying the LLP in the consumer ADR context results in novel empirical and theoretical insights. Empirically, it demonstrates that – even in low-value and transactional disputes – consumers expect high levels of participation from ADR. Theoretically, it argues that the LLP complements existing approaches by providing an unifying lens through which to study consumer experiences by emphasizing the importance of participation, not only as a process value but also in shaping outcomes highlighting the distinction between genuine and tokenistic provision of ADR.