Worldwide events seek reliable, comparable information about what users and disputants really need — and how the dispute resolution landscape could change to provide it

Today’s world is full of disconnects between the people who practice, promote, and think about dispute resolution processes and those who might use them. Mediators, arbitrators, judges, and other neutrals, those who have seen firsthand what ADR can achieve, often lament that alternative processes could help resolve many disputes but aren’t tried — or even considered. Yet no one has been able to explain ADR processes in a way that’s compelling and helps people see which one might be most appropriate for any specific dispute. Even in places where mediation and arbitration have become a viable option, some courts’ insistence on imposing them when they may be inappropriate has backfired, making them ineffective. Academics spend great amounts of time teaching how different dispute resolution processes are used, describing how they can be designed, and studying how they are viewed, but in practice few people really understand exactly when, how, and why a specific process works.

At the same time, just about everyone involved in dispute resolution — parties, judges, lawyers, providers, and academics — agrees on one thing: traditional court processes can leave a lot to be desired. In many cases, they’re expensive, they take a lot of time, and they tear people apart.

Read original article


Tags: