Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay why choose mediation
Role and function of mediation/conciliation
Role and function of mediation/conciliation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay why choose mediation
A. Advantages of Mediation Mediation can provide significant advantages over litigation in interstate water disputes. Mediators can be invaluable in resolving disputes. For example, meditators can assist by setting reasonable deadlines, sidestepping aggressive tactics, and finding creative solutions for states to consider. Mediation also involves creating win-win situations, where all states can expect to benefit more than they would in litigation. In addition, water cases involve complex issues, and mediators can help manage those complexities and keep the process moving forward. Specifically, mediation has three major advantages over litigation in water disputes: 1) it saves time, 2) it saves money, and 3) it builds long-term relationships, …show more content…
States that have chosen to pursue mediation have cited the massive expenses involved in litigation as one of their primary reasons for doing so. Interstate water litigation produces massive trials that can last for decades and involve hundreds of expert witnesses. For example, in the Tri-State dispute, Georgia allocated over twenty million dollars to fund its ongoing litigation with Florida and Alabama. Due to both the process and the reduced time frame, mediation should serve to reduce costs for states. However, mediation will also have associated costs. For example, costs for experts and data collection may be significant. Nevertheless, mediation is likely to be less expensive compared to litigation because it may not require lawyers and can move at a more reasonable …show more content…
Scholars have advocated for strong and independent mediators in interstate disputes because such mediators may be the only individuals capable of bringing states to the table and keeping them there. There are three main questions for how the process of mediation will work for interstate water disputes. First, what type of mediation should states use? Second, what types of features should that mediation have? Finally, what sort of issues are likely to arise in water mediation, and what can states and mediators do to avoid
In a recent opinion, the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed the meaning and status of Kansas water law. The case of Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 51 Kan. App. 2d 370 (2015), concerns a groundwater dispute between senior water users and junior water users in southwest Kansas. After filing a complaint against the junior users, the senior users sought an injunction to stop the pumping of groundwater. The District Court granted the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed their decision. The issues in the case concerned what the term impairment means in the context of water law and whether it is appropriate for a court to grant injunctive relief to a senior water user. The Court of Appeal’s decision upholds the principle
Sue contracts with Tom to deliver a quantity of computers to Sue’s Computer Store. They disagree over the amount, the delivery date, the price, and the quality. Sue files a suit against Tom in a state court. Their state requires that their dispute be submitted to mediation or nonbinding arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved, or if either party disagrees with the decision of the mediator or arbitrator, will a court hear the case? Explain. (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)
Conflict between residents in northern Nevada and SNWA has risen (Brean, 2015). In 2012 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced its support of SNWA wanting to build a pipeline from rural Nevada to Las Vegas, rural Nevada being primarily in the northern portion of the state (Larsen et al., 2015). Residents including farmers who depend on water for their crops argue that redirecting water supplies would harm the environment and wildlife that inhabit northern Nevada (Brean, 2015). There is also an issue of oversubscription, this is due to the Colorado River not only supplying water to Nevada but neighboring states which include “Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah” (Wockner, 2014). Both Arizona and California are expecting water shortages in the future as they too depend on the Colorado River (Wockner, 2014).
Water has long been a controversy in countless places worldwide and Colorado is no exception. The water rights in Colorado involve different stages within the Prior Appropriation Law; the senior and junior water rights. Senior water rights are privileges that were the first to be issued on unappropriated streams in Colorado and are to be filled before the junior water right holders. Junior water rights are similar to senior water rights, but are filled after the senior water holders take their allotted amount (Wolfe Prior Appropriation Law). The water in Colorado is just that; Colorado’s water, owned by the people and restricted by the state. However, Colorado is required by law to send over 30 million acre – feet of water to seven western states (“Missouri River”). An acre – foot is “The quantity of water required to fill one acre with one foot of water and is equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,850 gallons” (“Missouri River”). The State enforces all water laws in Colorado even though they are not straightforward and are riddled with loopholes. These water laws came into effect “As early as 1879” (Hundley, Jr. 53). In the laws, there are even more constraints and idiosyncrasies including; owning ground water, owning surface water, senior rights and junior rights, and the use and reuse of rainwater or graywater. Water users in Colorado need to familiarize themselves with the laws and regulations involving water in order to receive the allotted water and the reasoning behind that number.
Texas, with its abundances of natural resources, is facing a new demon, one that doesn’t even seem possible, a shortage of water. Water, without it nothing can survive. Texas is the second largest state for landmass in the nation and ninth for water square miles. Within the borders of Texas are more than 100 lakes, 14 major rivers, and 23 aquifers, so why has water become such an important issue for the state? Politicians and conservationists all agree that without a new working water plan, the state could be facing one of the most damaging environmental disasters they have ever seen. The issues that shape the states positions are population growth, current drought conditions, and who actually owns the water.
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
In psychological research it is important to understand the effects of moderators and mediators to the research being conducted. A moderator is a variable that exists prior to the experiment which affects the reaction of the independent variable on the dependent variable. A mediator is a variable that reduces the significance of the relationship of an independent variable on the dependent variable. A way to understand this concept is to explore specific examples.
The controversy over water rights has been a long battle that the Navajo Nation has endured for decades. This controversy which is complicated by numerous issues has only been increasing in recent years. For example the Navajo Hopi Little Colorado Water Settlement that has been in litigation for 33 years. Of particular note Navajo people and their elected officials are struggling to balance expectations with reality including legally mandated coordination with state and federal governments. As a result there has been notable conflict in resources associated with water management. These fundamental issues have been exasperated by a host of concerns: (1) deceased water availability due to drought or water development; (2) long litigation proceedings, (3) growing demands to use “Navajo Water” to meet non-Navajo energy needs in the southwest including coal consumption, uranium exploration-mining and natural gas fracking, and (4) the confusion of Indian Water Rights held separate from the United States water rights systems.
Water is essential to life. By being so important it is crucial to keep it maintained and preserved. Our water supply is affected by environmental, economic, and legal issues. In Oklahoma water is very sacred to its people especially to Native Americans. Both Choctaw and Chickasaw nations are suing the state of Oklahoma for the regulatory authority over Sardis Lake and the water resources it holds. The Choctaw and Chickasaw nations deserve the rights over Sardis Lake because it is their main water supply and they own the rights through the treaty of the Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830.
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
Poitras, J. (2007). The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1313496891).
Smith, M. (2009). Finding common ground: How advocacy coalitions succeed in protecting environmental flows. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(5), 1100-1115. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00362.x
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.
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.