Disputes are facets of societal interaction that have existed since the beginning of human settlement. Should it come to a point where it is not taken care of and resolved early, disputes between two parties are likely to grow and threaten the peace of the nation, as well as its security and stability.
Intending for disputes to be settled in a lawful manner, administrative tribunals whose mandate of law is to entertain disputes have been established. The process of resolving disputes are often lengthy and costly, with the scrutiny of the conflict a part of the many steps to settlement. Discussing the conflict warrants persons or groups to maintain cooperation throughout the process. Often, disputes lead to litigation.
If you were to find yourself caught in the middle of a dispute, it is important to note that most members of the legal profession offer judicial arbitration and mediation services, which are two of the best known and frequently utilized modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
ADR is a set of techniques used in resolving legal disputes. It is the more optimal choice in dispute settlement if you wish to avoid lengthy and costly court procedures.
Arbitration vs. civil litigation
Arbitration is known to resemble traditional civil litigation where an impartial mediator is included in the dispute. A critical difference between the two, however, is that the parties get to decide who the unbiased third party is, a choice that is not available in civil litigation.
This intermediary then listens to the arguments from both sides before imposing a final, binding decision that can be enforced by the courts. Another difference between arbitration and civil litigation that should be noted is that any future disputes that occur between the two parties are to be settled through arbitration thereon out.
Another mode of ADR that is commonly used is mediation. Like arbitration, mediation involves enlisting the help of an unbiased intervener whose job is to facilitate a discussion as they identify issues, explore possible bases for agreement, and explain the consequences of reaching an impasse.
They also encourage each party to be more accommodating so that a mutually agreed upon settlement can be reached. However, unlike in arbitration, the mediator has no power to impose decisions on all parties if they fail to meet on middle ground.
If the first two techniques do not work for both parties, then perhaps mini trials may interest them. Mini trials are processes where the lawyers who represent each side presents a brief version of the case to a mock jury, often comprised of the parties themselves, plus an impartial mediator who oversees the process.
The presentation functions to show the strengths and weaknesses of both parties in an attempt to negotiate a resolution to the conflict. If no agreement is reached, both sides may allow the mediator to pass a non-binding consultative opinion regarding the likely outcome of the case if it were brought to legal court.
These techniques and procedures are some of the most commonly utilized modes of ADR. In all cases, negotiation plays an important role, be it primary or secondary. While there are countless other ADR methods that can be employed, many are just a combination of these techniques.