NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION - Essay Example

This strategy will look useful when it is evident to one party that there are specific laws regarding the matter. In addition, it is clear that the other party is not willing to accommodate the interests of the party. Thus, if it is seen that the cost and time involved in litigation are worth putting in considering the issue, the party may resort to litigation. For example, a serious breach of contract often calls for litigation in the form of a lawsuit. On the other hand, mediation is rather voluntary in nature and hence, it has no binding impact on the parties involved.

Mediation requires the help of an impartial third party acceptable to all the parties involved. The benefit is that the decision is quick, and satisfactory to all the parties involved. This helps save cost and time. As is seen, the benefit of mediation is that the parties control the outcome unlike arbitration and litigation. So, it is highly useful in areas like renegotiating the various aspects of an existing agreement. The fact is that there is no point in dragging such an issue to a court or litigator causing unnecessary delay and complexity.

Both the parties fully understand the fact that the interests of the other party should also be accommodated in order to continue the agreement. In such situations, it is seen that the parties will use negotiation as the best strategy. Similarly, it is sometimes necessary to negotiate an agreement when two parties come together to form a new business venture. In such a situation, there is no point in depending on litigation and arbitration. In order to reach a solution which satisfies the interests of all the parties involved, the best strategy adopted is mediation.

Arbitration involves solving a dispute with the help of a knowledgeable third party. This is binding on the parties, and most of the time, the decisions will not be reviewed by a court. That means the parties are surrendering their right for resolution through courts when they resort to arbitration. The bright side of arbitration is that there are no formal pleading rules, and it is easier to communicate industry practices and complex damage models to a knowledgeable arbitrator than to a jury.

In addition, it helps save time and cost involved in litigation and consequent appeal. It is seen that arbitration is the most effective strategy when the issues are consumer-related or industry-internal subjects. The mere fact is that when there is a dispute between a business and a consumer, there is no point in resorting to mediation if the parties feel that the interests of the other parties in the dispute do not need to be entertained. In such cases, the issue is better handled by an arbitrator who is knowledgeable in the area.

Admittedly, this is useful when the issue can only be solved by a person or a board with knowledge in the industry. 2. I would like to have two-step dispute resolution clauses included in the agreement. It seems necessary to have mediation or negotiation as the step before arbitration because they are less time consuming and more effective. Also, this gives both the parties a chance to listen to the position of the other party, and may give valuable insight about the weakness in ones own position.

Anyway, as Friedland (2007, Ch 7) points out, it is necessary to have negotiation regarding the acceptability of mediators, negotiator, the binding nature