ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Introduction

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) comprises techniques of dispute resolution and dispute resolution procedures that work as a way for opposing groups to come to an accord apart from court cases. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a combined expression for the traditions that groups can resolve conflicts, without or with the assistance of a moderator. Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement was a campaign undertaken by those with a common interest in the promotion and institutionalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures. The idea that use of the official court system is only one among an abundant variety of ways of solving disputes. This paper discusses how ADR movement basically overlooks wider issues bothering the English civil justice process.

Discussion

 The origin of the current Alternative Dispute Resolution movement was two-pronged: it appeared from the social reform movements and from ongoing efforts at civil justice reform. Often both balancing and opposing, the social reform movements stressed on replacing adversary approaches with reconciliation, leading to “better” solutions and more satisfactory human relations. Ongoing efforts emphasize managing institutions more efficiently, clearing dockets, and reducing the delay & expense of and burden on judicial institutions. Informality is valued because it could result in cheaper, speedier, and less hostile resolution of dispute and a beneficial transformation of the disputants' interpersonal relationship. (Roger 2011, 123-125)

In the US, Alternative Dispute Resolution is usually categorized into 04 types: mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and collaborative law. Apart from its benefits, it has been also noted that Alternative Dispute Resolution movement mainly ignores wider problems affecting the American civil justice process. For example, Alternative Dispute Resolution cannot be used in criminal cases those are handled by and for the US government in the Criminal Courts. (Roger 2005, 73)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures are sometimes categorized as either adjudicative, in which an independent party makes a decision as in arbitration, or non-adjudicative. The terms negotiation-based ADR and nonbinding ADR are also used to distinguish some forms of ADR from adjudicative kinds of ADR. Another class of ADR procedures, with summary jury trial and early neutral evaluation, has been identified as evaluative, although a more functional distinction can be between adjudicative and conciliatory ADR mechanisms, Contrast adjudicative and conciliatory. (Stephen 2007, 92)

 Another distinction is made between active Alternative Dispute Resolution and passive Alternative Dispute Resolution. Active Alternative Dispute Resolution is affirmative risk-management activity that expects sources of difference and puts ready arrangements to manage exposures to liability and costs. Passive Alternative Dispute Resolution is reactive risk management that seeks to settle or sidetrack expensive court proceedings into other forums. The essential distinction between active and passive Alternative Dispute Resolution is a party's ability to act unilaterally to make Alternative Dispute Resolution happen. For example, placing arbitration clauses in all company contracts to require arbitration in any future disputes is active Alternative Dispute Resolution, while proposing to settle or submit a pending lawsuit to arbitration or mediation is passive Alternative Dispute Resolution because both require the other side's ...