Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods have been in use since the early days of civilization.(1) In the middle ages, crimes were seen as acts of injury caused by one person against another. The parties were expected to reach an agreement that would restore both parties and the community to a state where all involved healed from injury.(2) As civilization has evolved, so has the types of conflicts and perspectives on conflict. The basic premise of conflict will always be the same: “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive scarce resources, incompatible goals and interference from the other party in achieving their goals.(3)
However, the ways in which parties can interact with each other has changed over the centuries. During the middle ages talking or writing about someone in your own village or country would not effect others thousands of miles away. Historically, conflicts are perpetuated by physical interactions, by people who know each other or who have at least seen each other. With the advent of Internet technology it is possible to effect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in a matter of hours anywhere on the planet.(4) In cyberspace it is possible to have a conflict over something that does not even physically exist or that can be changed with a push of a button.
Internet technology also changes the way communication and information management are used in dispute resolution. With the invention of the fax machine and e-mail it is now possible to instantaneously distribute large quantities of information to anyone, anywhere.(5) Since the invention of real time chat and electronic conferencing, it is no longer necessary to have bot...
... middle of paper ...
...ing the Walk, 15 February 1997: www.voma.org/doc/mhwalk.html.
Katsh, Ethan M., “Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace,” 28 Conn. L. Rev. 953 (1996) :1-4. www.umass.edu/legal/articles/connmain.html.
Katsh, Ethan,“The Online Ombuds Office: Adapting Dispute Resolution to Cyberspace.” 1-10. www.law.vill.edu/ncair/disres/katsh.htm.
Leibowitz, Wendy R.,“Lawyers and Technology: Let’s Settle this, Online,” The National Law Journal (July 5, 1999) : 1-3.
Nagle Lechman, Barbara A.,Conflict and Resolution, New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1997.
Perritt, Jr., Henry H., “Electronic Dispute Resolution,”paper delivered at the On-line Dispute Resolution, Washington, DC.22 May 1996:1-14. www.law.vill.edu/ncair/disres/PERRITT.HTM.
Severson, Margaret M. and Tara V. Bankston, “Social Work and the Pursuit of Justice Through Mediation,” Social Work 40 no. 5 (1995) : 683-691.
Persuasion is a natural method many people use to influence a person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors in a situation. Many include, bribing parents to buy clothes to even lending someone money. Either way, people all over the world use words or phrases to convince or sway a person into believing them. Just as many people have used rhetorical appeals to persuade someone, Anthony also uses the rhetorical appeals; heartfelt pathos, questionable logos and evident ethos in William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar to convince his audience that Caesar was not ambitious and that Caesar was innocent
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.
In Chapter One of Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Cnflict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals, authors, David Lipsky, Ronald Seeber, and Richard Fincher (2003) lay the foundation for the rest of the book. They provide historical background on why corporations have shifted from dispute resolution to conflict management and stress the fact the “substantial dissatisfaction” that must drive companies to change how they handle dispute resolution (Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, 2003, Chapter 1, Inclination to Change). In addition, the authors articulated the differences between dispute management and conflict management (Chapter 1, Litigation, Dispute, and Conflict Management), detailed the five characteristics of an integrated conflict management system, listed the eight essential elements of a fair conflict management system, and pointed out other characteristics that effective conflict management systems share (Chapter 1, The Concept of a Conflict Management System).
The central theme of Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the power of rhetoric because it shows the effect of two funeral orators’ on the crowd. In this scene, Antony and Brutus have similar purpose in talking to the public, which is to gain the support of the Plebeians according to their conflicting views about Caesar’s assassination. This essay focuses on comparing the orations of the two speakers in this part of the play according to Aristotle’s rhetoric system. According to Aristotle’s writings, Antony’s speech is more persuasive than Brutus’ speech, because he is able to provide logical, emotional and ethical appeals to his audience. Firstly, in comparison to Brutus’ logic, Antony provides more evidence to prove that Caesar was not ambitious. Secondly, Antony’s emotional acts and speech moved his audience more than Brutus. Finally, Antony acts more noble than Brutus does.
Brutus and Antony’s use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos throughout the novel are just examples of the everyday persuasion used around us daily, when reading the play it does look like one giant competition to see who is the most persuasive and influential character. Even in today’s economy companies have to compete for the attention of consumers’ worldwide and politicians who argue their beliefs and views to millions of voters in order to get what they want, because the art of persuasion is just one big game.
One of the most critical needs of a civilization is communication. In the past, communication was presented by means of both oral and written forms. Unfortunately, this form of communication is slowly beginning to fade with the invention of the Internet.
...ns. This made Antony's speech more effective in the fact that he used detailed reasoning for why Caesar was not ambitious. This was why the people came to his favor in the end. The tones and rhetorical devices they used helped to capture their audience by appealing to their emotions and helping to move the views of Antony and Brutus's views across to their listeners. Comparing effectiveness and ineffectiveness of both speeches was important in determining which way the people would be swayed.
An Alternative Dispute Resolution is an act that means for disagreeing parties that couldn’t solve their issues or still haven’t find the way out of the issues. It is a collective term for the ways that the parties will come to an agreement which everyone agrees on with or without the help of the third party. Usually some courts use parties to help them in some cases. Usually Alternative Dispute Resolution is the support term of the process. In which an impartial person from the Alternative Dispute Resolution which is an Alternative Dispute Resolution practitioner. That various person will assists to those who has the problem or the issues or dispute to resolve the problem or the issues between them. Alternative Dispute Resolution commonly use for abbreviation for Alternative Dispute Resolution but, it can also be used as to assist the issues which leading them to the conclusion and the decision.
Antony’s goal was to persuade the crowd of plebeians that the conspirators acted impetuously and Caesar did not need to be killed. He uses many rhetorical devices to strengthen his speech and gain the support of the crowd. From rhetorical questions to the use of pathos, Antony masters the art of persuasion. His speech moves the crowd from believing Brutus’ reasoning for killing Caesar, to understanding that Caesar did not have to die.
In the past three hundred years communication has changed so much that sometimes it is hard to imagine. We have gone from hand written, hand delivered letters in the 1700’s to text messaging and face time. Humans naturally strive to make things better, to find easier ways of doing things. Communication has gone from only spoken messages to, written, typed, and then electronic.
The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996 requires federal agencies to have policies that address the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques and to appoint a Dispute Resolution Specialist. For the purpose of the statute, "alternative means of dispute resolution" include conciliation, mediation, facilitation, fact-finding, minitrials and the use of "ombuds." (Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996.)
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.
It is argued that the key factor in ADR application is that all it’s’ method are designed to assist the disputing parties resolve their differences in a manner that is creative and most suited to the particular dispute. Yet these achievements are not sweeping enough to conclude that the adversarial procedures are irrelevant. Though some people see ADR methods as supplanting the adversarial system, but these thoughts could only hold water where the courts in many jurisdictions are unable to resolve all disputes in a manner appealing to litigants, but until then ADR methods will be designated as collaborative dispute resolution system with the conventional litigation system.
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
Morrow Bernardi (1999) Resolving Workplace Disputes. Source: Canadian Manager, Spring99, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p17, 4p. Available: www.wls.lib.ny.us/databases/ebsco.com 06/10/99