More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze alternative dispute resolution
Analyze alternative dispute resolution
Analyze alternative dispute resolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
The ADR process that is used in a particular situation depends on the circumstances of that case. According to the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, the principal forms of ADR are the following: 1) Mediation- A process in which a Neutral attempts to facilitate a settlement of a dispute by conferring informally with the parties, jointly and in separate “caucuses,” and focusing upon practical concerns and needs as well as the merit of each side’s position; 2) Neutral Evaluation- A process in which an expert Neutral receives a presentation about the merits from each side and attempts to evaluate the presentations and predict how a court would decide the matter; 3) Arbitration- A process in which the parties present evidence to a neutral or panel of Neutrals, who then issues a decision determining the merits of the case. An arbitration may be binding or advisory, depending upon the agreement of the parties. If binding, the decision of the arbitrator (s) ends the case, subject only to circumscribed review pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Although ADR is an appealing alternative to litigation today, throughout the early history of the United States, courts expressed much hostility toward the idea of enforcing an agreement through any alternative dispute resolution. Throughout the 1900’s, United States courts were reluctant to enforce any agreement to arbitrate an existing or future dispute unless a specific statute...
... middle of paper ...
...alternative dispute resolution, Professor Katz offers a different theory which justifies enforcement of this type of resolution. In the American Business Law Journal, Katz states that the parties’ agreement to submit to an alternative dispute resolution process leads the parties to discuss the problems at hand and that the non-litigation process will facilitate a quick, more efficient, less costly resolution than the traditional way of litigation. He theorizes that the argument against enforcement of alternative dispute resolution is without significance because more often than not the alternative method will result in a better overall solution than the litigation process.
Arguments for and against ADR both seem to make sense. However, the future of ADR will largely depend on whether or not ADR lives up to its expectations. Whether, when compared to traditional litigation, it actually is more efficient, more expeditious and less costly. But until then, ADR seems like a good way to solve disputes today without dragging them through the rigorous proceedings of litigation, and it is also a good way to keep case management in the courts under control without overburdening the system.
the prejudice, hate and violence that seem to be so deeply entrenched in America's multiracial culture and history of imperialism, Takaki does offer us hope. Just as literature has the power to construct racial systems, so it also has the power to refute and transcend them… The pen is in our hands.
Stuntz discusses how there has been a big shift of power in the criminal justice system. When America was first getting started the judge had more power, but today that power has shifted and the judge has less power than the prosecutors. The federal government has big concerns in other areas, while the criminal justice is not its’ own, but works differently. The responsibility and the management of the criminal justice system belong to local elected officials, local law enforcement, and state law. Also the criminal justice system tends to focus more on the Bill of Rights, which four of them are specifically about crime in America (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth). Stuntz also discusses substantive and procedural law and shows how they can be related, but are also very different. Substantive law defines what a crime and what punishments fit, meanwhile procedural law is about the process the of the criminal justice system, for example, procedural law will explain the steps a police officer must take in order to have a justifiable arrest. There’s also a lot of comparison between the nineteenth century criminal justice process , and the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, there was no elected officials the judge made all decisions, and prosecutors were only paid by cases and conviction, which caused to convict even the pettiest of crimes. Meanwhile, in the twentieth century the balance of power
Since they lacked certain physical and/or cultural characteristics needed to belong in the American nation, they were not considered worthy enough to receive the same rights and privileges they deserve. Therefore, Takaki hopes that with his book, people would acknowledge how America developed a society centered to benefit only white people with the creation of laws hindering these racial groups from receiving the same and equal rights they deserve.
The Generals and politicians thought the war was going to end very quickly where every I gets to go home on Christmas. Generals and Politicians said “A few quick campaigns and a few decisive victories would “bring the boys home by Christmas, “perhaps even by the fall” (Overfield, James H. Sources of Twentieth-century Global History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print.) , p74. They were definitely wrong on that note. The war lasted 4 years in the hell the soldiers called the battlefield. One of the first major battles on the western front was called the Battle of Marne. The battle that halted the Germans from entering France into a long standing stalemate. The trench warfare started here, where soldiers dug deep into the ground and settled down to fight off the enemy soldiers. It was a stalemate for man...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
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.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
In the first Chapter of the book ‘A Different Mirror’ by (Takaki, 1993) the author embarks on a descriptive narrative that tries to elaborate the concept of a multiracial America. The chapter begins with the author taking a taxi ride in which he is subjected to racial discrimination. The taxi driver questions the author’s origin owing to the fact that his English is perfect and eloquent. This incident prompts a discussion that transpires throughout the chapter as the author tries to explain to his audience that America is a multiracial country with different ethnic groups that moved from their homelands to settle in the United States. The chapter discusses the settlement of various racial groups such as; English immigrants, African Americans, Asian Americans, Chicanos and the Irish.
A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki provides an insight of America’s multicultural nation. He shares the history of the non-European minorities who have settled and contributed to the growth in America. However, many do not view them as Americans today because they still follow the Master Narrative. This teaching only focuses on the European settlement and their history in America, therefore, causing no acknowledgement to the minorities. Takaki challenges the Master Narrative as an incorrect teaching because it does not reflect America’s full history. America has always been racially and ethnically diverse. Thus, he hopes to move them away from the Master Narrative and learn from his teachings that non-Europeans are Americans despite their
With all these cases filed and all these cases that are appealed, there are not enough judges or courts for that matter, to handles all these cases. This is why the we have come up with Alternative Dispute Resolutions(ADR). ADR first came about 1960s. Alternative Dispute Resolution simply refers to any way to solve a legal problem without having to go to court. Alternative Dispute Resolutions(ADR) doesn't just deal with minor cases.. Even the Federal government have come up with Alternative Dispute Resolutions(ADR) Working Group which is a branch of the Office of Disputes Resolution at the U.S. Justice Department. Congress and the President established the Working Group to coordinate, promote, and facilitate the effective use of ADR in the government, pursuant to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. (Cinciotta)
A virtual team is a group of people working interdependently via various types of electronic media across organizational and geographical boundaries for a shared purpose (D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010). Research indicates virtual teams are becoming increasingly popular in organizations across the United States and the world (D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010; Rusman, van Bruggen, Sloep, & Koper, 2010). These teams vary in size, degree of geographic dispersion, prior shared work experience, nature of assignment, and expectations of a common future (Rusman et al., 2010). Although virtual teams have potential advantages like the removal of physical boundaries, the ability to form new partnerships, and optimization of competencies (Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003), they also introduce many challenges that may not be as prevalent in traditional teams.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. 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 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.
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 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.