Question:
Essay Topic: Court proceedings are more efficient than alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) for domestic and international commercial, consumer, and business disputes.
This statement is your opinion?
Discuss
1. Apply the key principles of law to commerce to identify and evaluate legal problems.
2: Interpret and analyze legal issues in international and domestic contexts.
3. Use digital technology to search, retrieve, and apply the relevant information to law to commerce.
Answer:
Introduction
Alternative dispute resolution is a way to solve conflicts and make the justice system more efficient.
The process is cost-effective and saves couples a lot of time and money.
Many parties spend a lot of time and money hiring lawyers and filing lawsuits.
ADR improves the satisfaction of its users and makes the relationships between the parties more pleasant.
ADR is also beneficial for litigants, as it allows parties to remain in close relationships after the case has been settled.
ADR is proven to increase the efficiency of courts and decrease the burden of cases.
This paper will provide a detailed analysis of ADR’s effectiveness in domestic, international, and commercial disputes.
ADR can be described as a process that resolves conflicts and offers an alternative to litigation.
ADR is a process that brings in a third party to assist the parties in reaching an amicable resolution.
There are many types of ADR.
One of the most common ADR procedures is negotiation.
This is a method of voluntary communication.
Talk among the conflicting parties and reach an agreement.
Negotiation is a preventive ADR method, and can also be called a process for preventing conflict.
Mediation is the second type of ADR.
Mediation is where conflicting parties are assisted by an impartial third party.
Mediation, like negotiation, is classified as a facilitative procedure due to the involvement of a third party.
The role of the mediator is to facilitate, but not to provide advice or determination.
The third option is conciliation.
This is the most common process that Labour Relations Commission uses to resolve industrial disputes.
It is also widely used in resolving construction industry disputes.
This method can be described as an advisory process.
This method involves the assistance of an outside party, who helps the participants evaluate the problem and actively supports them in reaching a mutually beneficial solution.
Arbitration is the next step after conciliation. It is also known as a determinative ADR technique.
All determinative ADR methods include a neutral third party that listens to both sides of the case and decides the case.
Another example of a determinative process is an adjudication and expert determination.
Although the above-mentioned methods are most common, there is another type of ADR called Collective ADR.
This is a popular method for multi-party disputes where the parties don’t want litigation.
Ombudsman Schemes is one example.
Judicial ADR procedures are also available.
These dispute resolution procedures are usually used when parties file a lawsuit, but they settle during litigation.
ADR Overview and Objectives
ADR procedures are frequently established to achieve policy goals and objectives.
ADR methods like mediation and conciliation are part of the Irish statutory system (Cox 2012).
The Australian Conciliation & Arbitration Commission is also responsible for overseeing the ADR process in Australia.
Although there are many methods of ADR available, the extent to which they are used varies from one country to another.
ADR is sometimes used as a central point in a country, while others are spread across the country.
ADR can be used to resolve many types of conflict.
There are many types of disputes, including those between employees and management, consumers and commercial, as well as government vs. governments.
ADR is a useful area because of these conflicts. It also allows for the examination of its effectiveness.
A variety of methods and applications can produce different results, making it difficult to conclude whether ADR is effective.
A legal remedy for ADR can differ from one another depending on local laws.
However, ADR’s effectiveness can be tracked from different instances
Cost-effective
ADR has been shown to be cost-savings in many instances, especially when used to resolve domestic disputes like employees vs. managers.
According to the American Arbitration Association (2010), ADR methods such as mediation and negotiation increase the likelihood of reaching a mutually beneficial decision.
Arbitration is also more predictable than litigation.
Because arbitration is less likely to result in harsher judgments than a trial,
ADR allows parties to resolve domestic disputes with greater flexibility and lower costs, such as mediation, arbitration and negotiation.
These benefits are even greater for those involved in international conflicts.
The need to cross national borders is less costly.
It is also possible to fight the foreign court’s judgment.
He states in (Campbell (2010) that many parties avoid situations in which their case is heard by a foreign court, and especially the other party’s.
One party is afraid that the court of the other party will decide the case favoring the company within.
Arbitration is increasingly popular than litigation, and you will see this for many reasons.
Arbitration is preferred over litigation in international commercial disputes, for example.
Additionally, litigations are too time-consuming for most parties, as they can take much longer than in the United States and England.
The process can be quite expensive and creates a hostile relationship between the parties.
Time Savings
It’s interesting to compare the time it takes to resolve a dispute. This is a way to assess the effectiveness of ADR.
Then, it’s possible to compare that time with a legal process.
This time is known as time to disposition.
This is the time from the date of settlement to the date of filing a case.
According to Amsler et. al. 2009, ADR saves around 88 hours and takes around six months less than a traditional litigation process for each case.
A study done by the Centre for European Economic Law and The Study Centre for Consumer Law in 2007 found that consumers are more interested in a quick solution to their problems via direct negotiation than in asserting their legal rights.
Redress could be delivered, repaired, replaced, or refunded to a customer for example.
Businesses are often repeat customers in direct negotiations with consumers. Therefore, it is common for businesses set up formal complaint handling systems within their businesses to handle consumer disputes when they arise.
Other effects
It is easy to measure the direct effects of ADR on time and cost.
ADR can also provide other benefits for participants.
These direct benefits can even extend to non-participants.
Other benefits include the possibility that an employer and employee use ADR and the employee keeps their job.
Another benefit is the effectiveness of the courts. This can be a benefit for those companies that go through the court.
They can also decide to settle outside.
The other benefits include a lower number of lawsuits in courts, which speeds up the resolution for litigants (Tarr 2014).
Conclusion
ADR is proven to save time and money for all parties.
ADR can offer some final solutions such as arbitration, but others, like mediation or negotiations, may not work and the parties might end up in court.
It is important that policymakers improve the effectiveness and awareness of the judicial system.
Refer to
Business law.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.378.
American Arbitration Association (2010).
Handbook on employment arbitration and ADR.
Huntington N.Y. : Juris, P.51.
L. Amsler, T. Nabatchi and T. Senger (J.) and M. Jackman (M.) (2009).
The Vanishing Trial and Dispute Resolution: Comparing Federal Government Litigation with ADR Outcomes.
Vol. 24(2), Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution.
The Study Centre for Consumer Law and Centre for European Economic Law (2007).
Analyse and evaluation of other consumer remedies than those offered by the ordinary judicial process.
Final Report, p. 46.
International dispute resolution.
Judicial process and judicial policymaking.