Alternatve Dispute Resolution
Felicia Myles
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Belhaven University
Negotiation is one of the most general approaches used to formulate decisions and handle disputes. If negotiations are unsuccessful, it is essential to search for assistance of a neutral third party to facilitate a resolution. Going to court is not the way to handle disputes. With the expensive costs, long delays, and loss of confidentiality involved in going to court, people are turning to more efficient methods to resolve their differences. Alternative Dispute Resolution also known as ADR refers to any means of resolving disputes outside of the courtroom. There are many forms of Alternative Dispute Resolutions. As I compare and contrast the ADR’s mediation, arbitration, and adjudication, I will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Arbitration is where disputing parties involved discuss their differences to an individual judge or a team of private third party judges. The judge or judges determine the result of the case. The result that the judge composes is binding. This is not considered as a trial court, so the regulations of evidence and procedures are not official. The advantages of arbitration are the case will go much faster and it is less expensive. It is not a public hearing and there is not public record of the proceedings. Some disadvantages may include that judges are not neutral. There is no right of appeal even if the judge makes a mistake of fact or law. This process may not be faster and it may not be inexpensive. Mediation is created to assist conflicting parties resolve their personal disagreement without going to court. It is like arbitration that it has third party judges. The mediator determines the result of the case. Mediation is mainly used in civil damages cases. Mediation and arbitration both encourage similar ideas, such as access to fairness, a quick trial, reasonable results, and reduced overcrowding in
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Belhaven University
Negotiation is one of the most general approaches used to formulate decisions and handle disputes. If negotiations are unsuccessful, it is essential to search for assistance of a neutral third party to facilitate a resolution. Going to court is not the way to handle disputes. With the expensive costs, long delays, and loss of confidentiality involved in going to court, people are turning to more efficient methods to resolve their differences. Alternative Dispute Resolution also known as ADR refers to any means of resolving disputes outside of the courtroom. There are many forms of Alternative Dispute Resolutions. As I compare and contrast the ADR’s mediation, arbitration, and adjudication, I will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Arbitration is where disputing parties involved discuss their differences to an individual judge or a team of private third party judges. The judge or judges determine the result of the case. The result that the judge composes is binding. This is not considered as a trial court, so the regulations of evidence and procedures are not official. The advantages of arbitration are the case will go much faster and it is less expensive. It is not a public hearing and there is not public record of the proceedings. Some disadvantages may include that judges are not neutral. There is no right of appeal even if the judge makes a mistake of fact or law. This process may not be faster and it may not be inexpensive. Mediation is created to assist conflicting parties resolve their personal disagreement without going to court. It is like arbitration that it has third party judges. The mediator determines the result of the case. Mediation is mainly used in civil damages cases. Mediation and arbitration both encourage similar ideas, such as access to fairness, a quick trial, reasonable results, and reduced overcrowding in
References: Bible Rubin, R. A., Quintas, B.V. (2003). Alternative Dispute Resolution in U.S. Public Works: Proposed Model. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 129(2), 80. Wilmot, W. and Hocker, J. (2011). Interpersonal Conflict (8th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.