?Compared to what??: Defining terms in court-related ADR programs

Abstract

As Janet Rifkin (1990) points out in a recent Negotiation Journal column, t.here are many examples of terms used ha the fast-growing dispute resolution field that need definition. We came face-to-face with this problem in the course of a recent study of courtrelated ADR programs in Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois, where we encountered many people who were unclear about the term "alternative dispute resolution" in general, as well as the differences that separate adjudication from settlement mechanisms and the latter from collaborative problemsolving processes. It is important to define such terms clearly both to help consunaers make sense of court-related alternative dispute resolution programs and to promote thoughtful future patterns of growth for these programs.Central to an understanding of alternatives is a distinction between adjudicatory and collaborative processes. The former are based on the assumption that disputes arise when people differ over the meaning and and Margaret L. Shaw application of standards to specific conduct. The adjudicatory process empowers an intervenor to assess the truth of what the parties state, to identify, interpret and apply appropriate standards (whether derived from statutes, codes, contracts, or notions of "fairness" or "reasonableness") to a set of facts or events, and to assess the relative liabJRty or culpability of involved parties.In the adjudicatory process the neutral decides, while parties persuade. The adjudicator sifts through disputed facts and applies to them the cited standard, a task that frequently requires explanation of the standard by the neutral. The process is necessarily retrospective, and the issues consist of differences over the standard and/or the facts.A collaborative approach to conflict suggests that disputes fi~equendy arise

Reexaminando la noción de Resolución Alternativa de Disputas (ADR) en el contexto del derecho de acceso a la justicia ‘no jurisdiccional’ = Reexamining the notion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the context of the right of access to ‘non-jurisdictional’ justice

“…No sin razón se ha dicho que el proceso, como forma de solución de conflictos, y como instrumento decisorio de carácter vertical, es predominantemente autocrático, en tanto que el rol de las partes no es más que persuadir a quien ha sido facultado para decidir cómo deber ser solucionado el conflicto, mientras que la utilización de mecanismos no jurisdiccionales, particularmente, la de aquellos tendientes a facilitar la resolución de conflictos, pareciera ser una vía mucho más demócrata, en tanto que dichos mecanismos son, genuinamente, mucho más participativos que el proceso, pues ellos permiten que sean los propios sujetos del conflicto quienes decidan cómo ponerle fin al conflicto que existe entre ellos. 256…”