Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Justice in the Legal System Essay
Advantages and importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The resolution of disputes through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms has gained momentum over recent decades. It has increasingly occupied space in the academic literature as the “new” method to achieve “justice” for disputing parties. It is important to note that a variety of definitions of “justice” can be relied upon. However, in many cases, justice will mean the parties being able to resolve their dispute fairly, justly and amicably by applying law or legal principles. Traditional legal mechanisms for resolving disputes have been increasingly questioned as to whether they are actually capable of achieving justice in individual cases.
The value of ADR is that it allows parties to depart from the formal structures of the law to
…show more content…
Consequently, it would appear that justice could only be achieved in mediation and restorative justice for less serious and first time …show more content…
The ADR framework has emerged from being classified as an ad hoc means to resolve disputes to becoming a more mainstream form of justice where parties increasingly opt for ADR as the means to resolve future dispute instead of traditional forms of justice. However, a concern of the increasing resemblance of ADR to traditional forms of justice leaves a question as to whether ADR has currently evolved into a new form of traditional litigious justice. It may be argued that the definition of justice shifts considerably between the three areas but a common theme is identifiable. Mediation provides a substantial amount of cases with the opportunity to pursue a resolution to their dispute in a way that is fair, just and agreeable between the parties that are not necessarily evident in court procedures. The ability of the mediation to allow the disputing parties to tailor justice to meet their own particular needs can be regarded as being an extremely positive development. The increasing reliance on ADR, including mediation, within the traditional confines of justice systems can be regarded as the means of the courts being able to manage their caseloads so that parties are not exclusively relying on the courts to impose settlements. But, there is a key concern which may require further research. The ADR processes may be
Ulrich, G. (1999). Widening the circle: Adapting traditional Indian dispute resolution methods to implement alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice in modern communities. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy. 20, (2), 419-452.
He explains that when a conflict arises, we are less capable to take on the situation and are more likely to hand it off to authorities. He then comes to the conclusion of how they are overlooked, in terms of importance, and that individuals own their conflicts as one would own property. Furthermore, he justifies that these properties are stolen by law, therefore, no longer owned by individuals. Christie urges the need to eliminate ‘professionals’ from the sphere of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. He explains his perspective of “conflict as property” as not relating to material compensation but rather to the ownership of conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the “property” originally, and puts forth a fix for this process. He introduces a way to remodel the justice system for dealing with conflicts in which the court is victim
...sfactory, they still demonstrate a progress from the punitive system and they must be taken into account with the satisfaction and perceived fairness factors which are highly positive. Surely, it is too soon to know the future of victim-offender mediation and restorative justice as a whole. It may be that victim-offender mediation has had a limited success in terms of stopping crime (reoffending) and has encountered a number of important issues such as resources or participation but we can definitely learn something from it. Indeed, if it can be argued that mediation is not perfect, nor is the traditional criminal justice system, which means that something must be done and hopefully we can progressively move from a punitive and repressive system towards a more reparative system whose benefits have been put forward by the experience of victim-offender mediation.
This source further substantiates the sensibilities behind a collaborative law process, building upon court mediation and taking it a step further. It provides a “real-world” example which can be evaluated and used to support a conceptualized structure for a neutral legal firm to function within.
Arbitration is an alternative to litigation for resolving disputes. It is defined as a process through which a neutral party (the arbitrator) listens to the two parties’ dispute and then makes a ruling that is usually binding on the parties. In comparison to litigation, the parties control the process so that they have say in certain rules such as degree of formality, privacy, and the arbitrator. In the end, this alternative dispute resolution is cheaper and quicker which leads to an overall sense of satisfaction for both parties. The arbitration process is outlined in Clause 19 of the Airbnb Terms of Service. Before potentially engaging in arbitration, the two parties will attempt to negotiate an informal resolution with the
Journal of Dispute Resolution, 401-427.
appears to be the best method of resolving and regulating justice in conflicts in the
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
Document ID: 671516321. Poitras, J. (2007). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282.
Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants; 2) to offer alternative methods of dispute resolution in addition to the regular court system; and 3) to provide public education about the available alternatives.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail some parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
Both forms of ADR have several common characteristics. However, one must consider that a neutral side in both procedures fulfils distinct from one another duties. Mediators do not have the objective to make decision, whereas arbitrators determine an outcome of the case. Upon the termination of the procedure, an arbiter renders a binding award that cannot be later avoided by disputants. During mediation, parties are not contingent upon the third side and enjoy freedom of actions needed for dispute resolution. In contrast, in case of failure to reach an agreement, parties are not legally bound for actions afterwards. By considering the true qualities of arbitration and mediation taken individually, legislation and scientists suggest that in single arbitration, arbitrators may use mediators’ functions to promote amicable settlement and functions of both arbitrators and mediators have incongruous
Mediation is a form of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is a process which it assists disputed parties to arrive to a mutually agreed resolution without going to court. As the out of court problem solving approach, mediation is a more convenient way for parties which trying to avoid the hassle and loving some flexibility from the more rigid court procedure. Mediation can be said as an informal process of which parties during this process is encouraged to work together among the disputed parties in good faith in order to solve their problems and disputes at a lower financial cost and it consume lesser time as opposed to the court procedure. Mediation recently has become more common as one of dispute resolution process especially for disputes which have relations to divorce matter, child custody or even for child visitation especially for its privacy and confidentiality.
It thus presents a very distinctive process that addresses the “informational and emotional needs” of the victim which is necessary for their healing. Victim- Offender mediation may be used as part of the judicial process or as an alternative to the traditional criminal justice processes. It can take various forms and outlines, depending on the structure of the criminal justice system, the stage at which it is introduced and its relationship with the traditional justice system. It can be ‘independent’, ‘relatively independent’ and ‘dependent’ on the criminal justice