| Abstract: | Amicable dispute settlement methods play a major role in the resolution of civil and
commercial disputes. These mechanisms present advantages to the parties as
compared to arbitration and litigation. The Civil Code of 1960 contains provisions
on Conciliation and Compromise, which set out the minimum legal framework for
practical use by disputing parties in civil and commercial matters. Conciliation and
compromise are in the main regulated under Arts. 3318-3324 and 3307-3317
respectively. The Civil Procedure Code of 1965 also consists of several provisions
on compromise (Arts. 274-277). Generally, disputes are legally and conveniently
amenable and better resolved through these amicable dispute settlement methods.
However, whether they are put in use entirely depends on the free will of the
disputing parties‟. They can only be resorted to whenever the disputing parties
commit themselves to use them in their contractual agreements. For certain other
disputes, these amicable dispute settlement mechanisms are compulsory; in such
cases, policy rationale dictates that disputes of such nature should be swiftly
resolved through amicable dispute settlement methods. Some other disputes are,
however, vested exclusively in the courts. This article distinguishes arbitration from
conciliation. It is discussed whether conciliation differs from mediation. Attempt
has also been made to shed light on the nature and application of concilioarbitration
in Ethiopia. The legal framework underpinning negotiation, conciliation,
and compromise is expounded. Furthermore, the legal lacunae in relation to
conciliation is addressed. |
