'Resolving Mass Disputes is a timely, informative, and stimulating book. the contributed chapters analyze the phenomena of interest - mass dispute resolution in court-based systems and their alternatives - in numerous countries and the EU, and the insights they afford are nicely drawn together in a comprehensive introduction by the editors, Christopher Hodges and Astrid Stadler. As a result, the reader is enabled to understand and begin to evaluate comparatively the various mechanisms by which a broad array of common law and civil law systems currently resolve mass disputes.' - Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School, US

'Legal systems worldwide are increasingly grappling with the legal and logistic complexities of collective actions and claims. Although the US-style class action contrasts sharply with the European focus on individual litigation, policy-makers throughout Europe are seeking to reduce judicial budgets, to enhance self-reliance through ADR schemes and to introduce new and efficient forms of redress through collective litigation. Meanwhile, the market for justice is becoming increasingly globalised. Thus, a sense of judicial competition between jurisdictions may accelerate a European movement towards new procedures and paradigms in the realm of collective redress. Against this background, this formidable collection of comparative essays on collective redress and ADR is both timely and unique. This book shows viable pathways to ensuring efficient and balanced collective redress. Excellent contributors and editors have jointly succeeded in connecting ADR and collective redress in ways previously considered disparate.' -- Willem H. van Boom, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 'Resolving Mass Disputes is a timely, informative, and stimulating book. The contributed chapters analyze the phenomena of interest -- mass dispute resolution in court-based systems and their alternatives -- in numerous countries and the EU, and the insights they afford are nicely drawn together in a comprehensive introduction by the editors, Christopher Hodges and Astrid Stadler. As a result, the reader is enabled to understand and begin to evaluate comparatively the various mechanisms by which a broad array of common law and civil law systems currently resolve mass disputes.' -- Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School, US. The landscape of mass litigation in Europe has changed impressively in recent years, and collective redress litigation has proved a popular topic. Although much of the literature focuses on the political context, contentious litigation, or how to handle cross-border multi-party cases, this book has a different focus and a fresh approach. Taking as a starting-point the observation that mass litigation claims are a 'nuisance' for both parties and courts, the book considers new ways of settling mass disputes. Contributors from across the globe, Australia, Canada, China, Europe and the US, point towards an international convergence of the importance of settlements, mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). They question whether the spread of a culture of settlement signifies a trend or philosophical desire for less confrontation in some societies, and explore the reasons for such a trend. Raising a series of questions on resolving mass disputes, and fuelling future debate, this book will provide a challenging and thought-provoking read for law academics, practitioners and policy-makers--Résumé de l'éditeur.

Raising a series of questions on resolving mass disputes, and fuelling future debate, this book will provide a challenging and thought-provoking read for law academics, practitioners and policy-makers.

Nelson identifies three principal institutions involved in conflict resolution: the twon meeting, the church congregation, and the courts of law. He subsequently determines the type of cases over which each institution had jurisdiction and studies the procedures by which each functioned. He examines the tendency after 1800 to bring disputes to the court and sees this as a response to the introduction of new, nontraditional values not held by local institutions. Originally published 1981. A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

Written by leading authorities in the field of European civil procedure and collective redress, this timely book explores the model collective proceedings rules in the ELI/UNDROIT European Rules of Civil Procedure. It explains the intended application of this ‘best practice’ set of collective redress rules, intended to promote greater consistency in civil and commercial court procedure across Europe, linking to existing European practice and initiatives in the field.

Comparative Dispute Resolution offers an original, wide-ranging, and invaluable corpus of chapters on dispute resolution. Enriched by a broad, comparative vision and a focus on the processes used to handle disputes, this study adds significantly to the discourse around comparative legal studies. Chapters present new understandings of theoretical, comparative and transnational dimensions of the manner in which societies and their legal systems respond to difficulties in social relations.

Aggregation has long been viewed as the primary if not sole vehicle for mass claims resolution. For a half-century, scholars have consistently viewed the consolidated litigation of similar claims through joinder, class actions and more recently multi-district litigation as the only mechanism for efficiently resolving mass claims. In this Article, I challenge that long-standing and fundamental conception. The Article seeks to reconceptualize our understanding of mass claims resolution, arguing that we are witnessing the birth of a second, unexplored branch of mass claims resolution mechanisms -- which I term “disaggregative” dispute resolution systems because they lack the traditional aggregation of common questions that has been the hallmark of traditional mass claims litigation. Disaggregation returns to a focus on the individual akin to that of the single-plaintiff system, but uses either procedural or substantive streamlining, or a shift of costs to the defendant, to correct the asymmetries that prompted the creation of class actions. Many of our most innovative claims structures -- from the BP GCCF and the fund created in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster, to the common single-plaintiff arbitration clauses in consumer and employment agreements -- use this new, bottom-up model of disaggregative mass claims resolution instead of the familiar top-down aggregative model. These next-generation systems have been heralded as a significant advancement in mass claims resolution, capable of awarding more compensation to claimants more quickly and at lower cost than aggregate litigation. But like the single-plaintiff and aggregate litigation systems that preceded it, disaggregation has its flaws. Because the defendant typically designs these systems, they often give rise to questions about legitimacy and the accuracy of compensation. More shockingly, situating disaggregation within the existing doctrinal trends reveals that the rise of disaggregation allows corporations to avoid class actions in a far broader swath of cases than has previously been identified -- such that class actions will, as a practical matter, proceed only at the defendant's election, raising substantial questions about the viability of private actions as a mechanism for the enforcement of law. Yet, because these systems are the product of contract, attempts to restrict these systems have largely failed. The answer to these problems lies in an unlikely and potentially controversial approach: expanding rather than restricting the availability of disaggregation, by creating a public mechanism for disaggregation -- comparable to the existing public aggregation mechanisms.