Comparative study between FIDIC Dispute Adjudication and Negotiation as Alternative Dispute Resolution methods
Comparative study between FIDIC Dispute Adjudication and Negotiation as Alternative Dispute Resolution methods

Summary/Abstract: Increasing foreign investments in Romania has encouraged new participants to enter the Romanian Construction Market. Given the internationalization of the Romanian Construction Market, the increasing size and value of projects, and the intensive use of FIDIC contracts, it is questionable whether the traditional dispute resolution methods remain apposite. This paper discusses the FIDIC (Federation Internationale des Inginers Consultants) specific adjudication of disputes by the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) in comparison with negotiation. Adjudication of disputes by (DAB) represents a hybrid method of dispute resolution, which was originally specific to this type of standardized construction contracts. This method, containing a complex and mostly interdisciplinary mechanism, harmoniously blends common features with several alternative methods of dispute resolution already established. The paper discusses some of the similarities and differences between FIDIC adjudication method and negotiation, in order to determine whether adjudication has earned a distinct and independent place among ADR methods or is just a variation of the traditional negotiation method. The advantages and disadvantages of using the FIDIC Contracts in Romania are also considered. The paper concludes that FIDIC contracts are appropriate for projects in Romania and the adjudication of disputes by the Dispute Adjudication Boards is compatible with the Romanian legislative system the author advising the use of Romanian adjudicators, members of the Romanian Adjudicators Association

• Details
• Contents