Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Research papert on alternative dispute resolution
Resolving conflicts
Conflict management
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Research papert on alternative dispute resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Resolution in the courts is not the only method of dispute resolution.
If the parties can resolve their own differences then there would be
no need to use the court system which would benefit all parties being
the claimant, defence and the civil justice service. Although the
court service is a good and fair way of dealing with civil disputes in
might not be the ideal way in getting the best result for both the
parties. There are four main ways of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) they are; Negotiation, Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration
(also known as a Formal Settlement Conference or mini-trial).
Negotiation is a method whereby the two parties try to resolve their
differences by sitting down together in the hope of reaching an
agreement. By using this method it is cheap, private and quick. The
parties can also use their solicitor or another legal representative
if they fail in the negotiation process this method maybe more ideal
because it will not incorporate any bad feelings or emotion which
might prevent any resolution being agreed. When a dispute has being
'settled out of court' it has been resolved by negotiation and
negotiation precedes the majority of cases due to be heard in the
county court and also sometimes tribunals. Negotiations are organised
by the two parties or by their legal representatives on their agreed
terms. Most negotiations take place in an neutral environment which
could be a booked boardroom or even an office depending on the size of
the parties. Each party would agree on a set time limit if deemed
necessary to increase the pressure on both parties to settle in
...
... middle of paper ...
...l court system are well known, and
waiting for a caseto come to court may, especially in commercial
cases, add considerably to the overall cost, and adversely affect
business.
Expertise; those who run alternative methods of dispute resolution
schemes often have specialist knowledge of relevant areas, which can
promote a fairer as well as quicker settlement.
Conciliation of the parties; most alternative methods of dispute
resolution aim to avoid irrevocably dividing the parties, so enabling
business or family relationships to be maintained.
Overall the advantages weigh out the disadvantage of the costs
involved in setting up a strong case involving lawyers, witnesses,
company statements etc. It also lessens the queue's of the civil
courts and lessens stress on both parties because of the lack of
formality.
Throughout the years there have been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented, they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply, among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved.
The procedure is quick, simpler and cheaper than the full county court process, which is helpful to both litigants and the over worked court system. It gives individuals and small businesses a useful lever against creditors or for consumer complaints. Without it, threats to sue over small amounts would b ignored on the basis that going to court would cost more than the value of the debt or compensation claimed. Public confidence is also increased, by proving that the legal system is not only accessible to the rich and powerful. References: Law for AQA A-level textbook As Brian heap A2 2001 Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn Seventh edition First published 2001 A-level textbook GCSE Law Brian Heap Jacqueline Martin 2001 2001 Seventh edition Second edition
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves resolution methods and approaches that fall outside the structure of the judicial process. Despite its praise in preventing costly litigation and unpredictable outcomes when there are severe disagreements and impasses this, there have been objections to ADR in the past. Still, alternative dispute resolution has increased its comprehensive reception among the legal profession and business world, in recent times. In fact, numerous courts require applicable parties to remedy through resolution before consenting the parties' cases to be heard. In addition to the increased caseload of traditional courts, its growing popularity can be linked to the perception that ADR levies lower costs and
Many criminal cases are settled outside of the courts by having both sides come to a mutual agreement. This is the process known as negotiating a plea or simply plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is common for many reasons. Plea bargaining makes it possible for defendants to avoid the time and cost of defending themselves at trial, the risk of a harsher punishment, and the publicity of a trial. Plea bargaining can also save the prosecution time and money by avoiding
Arbitration is an alternative to litigation for resolving disputes. It is defined as a process through which a neutral party (the arbitrator) listens to the two parties’ dispute and then makes a ruling that is usually binding on the parties. In comparison to litigation, the parties control the process so that they have say in certain rules such as degree of formality, privacy, and the arbitrator. In the end, this alternative dispute resolution is cheaper and quicker which leads to an overall sense of satisfaction for both parties. The arbitration process is outlined in Clause 19 of the Airbnb Terms of Service. Before potentially engaging in arbitration, the two parties will attempt to negotiate an informal resolution with the
A group can only be called a team if the members are actively working together toward a common goal. A team must have the capability to set goals, make decisions, solve problems, and share responsibilities. For a team to be successful, trust must be earned between its members by being consistent and reliable (Temme & Katzel, 2005). When more than one person is working on a particular task, inconsistent views or opinions commonly arise. People come from different backgrounds and live through different life experiences therefore, even when working towards a common goal, they will not always see eye to eye. Major conflict that is not dealt with can devastate a team or organization (Make Conflict Work, 2008). In some situations, conflict can be more constructive than destructive. Recognizing the difference between conflict that is constructive to the team and conflict that is destructive to the team is important. Trying to prevent the conflict is not always the best way to manage conflict when working within a team setting. Understanding conflict, what causes it, and how to resolve conflict effectively, should consume full concentration.
Meaningful communication between two or more individuals rarely leads to 100% agreement between all parties involved. More commonly, there are disagreements on certain points. In a close relationship like a marriage, which is also a partnership; in a strong business relationship; or in a hostage situation, these disagreements must be worked out satisfactorily for both sides in order for the relationship to remain healthy and/or the outcome to be positive. When the parties must reach an agreement or a compromise, one of the best communication strategies is negotiation.
Many people enjoy working or participating in a group or team, but when a group of people work together chances are that conflicts will occur. Hazleton describes conflict as the discrepancy between what is the perceived reality and what is seen as ideal (2007). “We enter into conflicts reluctantly, cautiously, angrily, nervously, confidently- and emerge from them battered, exhausted, sad, satisfied, triumphant. And still many of us underestimate or overlook the merits of conflict- the opportunity conflict offers every time it occurs” (Schilling, nd.). Conflict does not have to lead to a hostile environment or to broken relationships. Conflict if resolved effectively can lead to a positive experience for everyone involved. First, there must be an understanding of the reasons why conflicts occur. The conflict must be approached with an open mind. Using specific strategies can lead to a successful resolution for all parties involved. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument states “there are five general approaches to dealing with conflict. The five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, and collaboration. Conflict resolution is situational and no one approach provides the best or right approach for all circumstances” (Thomas, 2000).
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.
workplace include greater total resources, greater knowledge band and a greater source of ideas. However, these advantages can also bring on conflict within teams and the entire workplace. Varney (1989) reported that conflict remained the number one problem within a large company. This was after several attempts were made to train management in conflict resolutions and procedures. However, the conflict remained. The conflict possibly remains because the managers and leaders did not pay attention to the seriousness of the issue. In order to maintain an effective team, leaders and team members must know and be proactive in the conflict resolution techniques and procedures.
ADR holds an extensive, easily influenced and diverging choice of processes for finding solutions to disputes which are personified by structured negotiation and consensus. It is regarded that arbitration is a familiar ADR technique, however, it is more of an official adjudicative and adversary technique initially a confidential litigation process which has more commonality to litigation than the more original consensual processes which symbolise ADR. As simplified by Angyal (Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1987, p. 11). "The key difference between ADR and those traditional techniques of litigation and arbitration is that ADR techniques are used to produce a resolution to dispute through a negotiated agreement while litigation and arbitration are processes by which a result is imposed on the parties. " We can say that many issues arise with terms.
Thus, it is reasonable for consumers to be able to afford to litigate the case. In addition, a class action law suit is decided by only a judge, so inconsistent verdicts do not become a problem. The litigation takes less court time, thus leading to greater judicial efficiency. The most important advantage is that all plaintiffs have the opportunity to receive damages caused by the defendant. When the class wins the lawsuit, all members in the class action receive some payment, even if the amount is not enough to cover the damages.
Both forms of ADR have several common characteristics. However, one must consider that a neutral side in both procedures fulfils distinct from one another duties. Mediators do not have the objective to make decision, whereas arbitrators determine an outcome of the case. Upon the termination of the procedure, an arbiter renders a binding award that cannot be later avoided by disputants. During mediation, parties are not contingent upon the third side and enjoy freedom of actions needed for dispute resolution. In contrast, in case of failure to reach an agreement, parties are not legally bound for actions afterwards. By considering the true qualities of arbitration and mediation taken individually, legislation and scientists suggest that in single arbitration, arbitrators may use mediators’ functions to promote amicable settlement and functions of both arbitrators and mediators have incongruous
However, must be bear in mind that the mediator is at no power of making decisions which bind the parties. The mutual agreement or resolution which achieved during a mediation process will need enforcement by registering the resolution or settlement agreement in court. Although mediation seems like a better solution than the court process however, must be remember that not every mediation session will end up with a settlement or resolution as wanted, take for example a mediation which took place between one of Malaysia celebrity, Hanez Suraya and her Public Relation (PR) Officer, Mohd Fairus...
The Civil Procedure Rules recognised in Wales and England imposes a positive duty on the court to encourage parties to use an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures if the court considers it appropriate, from the forgoing it could be inferred that achieving unbiased and objective dispute resolution is no longer the exclusive claim of the adversarial legal process as hitherto claimed by liberal societies. In addition, exact practices of adversarial legal system scarcely exist, since the daily life of court now involves routine departures from its original fundamental ideals. Nonetheless, growing evidence depict that mediated outcomes are more likely to be complied with than court decrees contrary to the position of pro adversarial advocates.