ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW: NAVIGATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PATHWAYS IN COMMON AND CIVIL LAW FRAMEWORKS

Abstrak

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is critical in addressing construction disputes, especially given the inherent complexity of such projects and the likelihood of conflicts. This paper explores the application of ADR techniques, including arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, within both Common Law and Civil Law systems. The key issue lies in the variations between these legal frameworks, which challenge the consistent implementation of ADR in international construction disputes. The research aims to evaluate how ADR mechanisms function across these two legal traditions and measure their effectiveness in resolving construction-related conflicts. Using a comparative analysis of prominent ADR practices in Common Law and Civil Law jurisdictions, the study focuses on their practical impacts on construction dispute resolution. The findings reveal marked differences, with Common Law systems preferring arbitration, while Civil Law systems emphasize mediation and conciliation. The conclusion underscores the need for greater alignment of ADR practices to streamline the resolution of cross-border construction disputes, suggesting that hybrid approaches could offer more adaptable and effective solutions.