Alternative Dispute Resolution - Report Example

Running Head: Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution [Institute’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Introduction On November 12, 1982 New York Times, and Milwaukee sentinel and other big newspapers and news channels had some interesting news to offer. Although the headlines were different but the real story was the same that Texaco and Borden settle their long dispute. Texaco will pay Borden, 39 million US dollars because of that settlement. Borden had filled a 200 million US dollars anti-trust lawsuit against Texaco for the violation of gas supply contract in the year 1980. More importantly, Texaco and Borden ended up having a business deal, a new gas supple contract that would stay valid until the year 1988 and both companies regarded that contract beneficial for their side. Moreover, this serious settlement just took three weeks. However, the same case was in the court for more than the past 30 months and the court was not able to find a result. It was then, the both parties agreed for an “alternative dispute resolution.” Both companies appointed arbitrators from their side who took less than three weeks to come up with a result, which was a “win/win” result for both of the firms (Paulsson & Freshfields, pp. 156-159, 1999). In fact, there are many other examples for these as well like the British & Common Wealth versus Atlantic computers case and Arthur Andersen versus UK government case. Therefore, alternative dispute resolution is a process of settlement and dispute resolution between two or more companies by a process that falls outside the written legal system. Arbitration is one of its types and the rest of the paper focuses on the same. Discussion Arbitration is form of settlement that has been there in the human history since ages. However, more recently, it is gaining wide range acceptance and the examples of arbitration are increasing. According a study, the success of arbitration is 80-90 percent (Estreicher & Sherwyn, pp. 23-28, 2004). This is because this procedure has some considerable advantages and benefits as compared to the traditional legal or court system. The process starts with two or more parties disputing over some issue. Either they appoint an arbitrator of their choice or any third party with their consensus chooses to arbitrate. There can more than one arbitrator as well (Paulsson & Freshfields, pp. 156-159, 1999). Arbitrator usually is an expert of the field from which the case belongs. Moreover, the arbitrator can be simply some is trusted by both of the parties. It is important here to note that the decision of the arbitrator is final, binding, and irreversible. Unlike any court’s decision, there is no room for reviewing or reevaluation until and unless both parties agree on that (Estreicher & Sherwyn, pp. 23-28, 2004). As mentioned earlier in the paper, this system is better than the traditional legal system in many ways. People tend to avoid courts because they know the legal procedure is always time consuming. For the past few decades, our legal experts of different countries have added many laws to the existing ones, thus providing more opportunity for people to bring their disputes. Reports indicate that during the years of 1960-1980, the number of cases brought to the court increased by more than 232 percent (Breger, Schatz, & Laufer, pp. 121-124, 2001). Moreover, this trend is still there and is on the increasing side. This has increased the burden on the courts so much that they have no choice but to make many people wait in lines. In fact, this is the problem everywhere in the world. Unfortunately, it can take some very serious shapes at times. In the last decade in India, a girl filled a case of rape against her. She tried her level best to get the attention of the courts but she failed to do so and had no choice but to wait for her turn. Finally, her turn came and the court agreed upon a date for the hearing for her case. On the day, she was not present in the court and on inquiring; the judge came to know that she is dead. It took 20 years for her turn to come (Reilly & MacKenzie, pp. 23-29, 1999). Justice is effective only when it is timely. Arbitration can provide justice and solution to the parties quickly and in a speedy manner. Another important issue with the courts is the economic and financial costs that one incurs during the process. The cost of the legal paper work, hiring a lawyer, coming to court at every granted date and others, sometimes, affects the victim, very severely (Waites, pp. 56-57, 2003). One may win his or her case in the court but may end up incurring more costs than the gain made by winning the case. Arbitration and others form of alternative dispute resolution are much economical as compared to the other legal systems (Waites, pp. 56-57, 2003). In some cases, it also happens that the jury who is listening to your case in the court is not the expert of the discussed subject (Atlas, Huber & Trachte-Huber, pp. 3-7, 2000). However, with arbitration the parties can make sure that the arbitrator is an expert of the field. Arbitration also provides many other benefits under the umbrella of flexibility. Parties can decide upon when the want the hearings and want laws they want to apply to their situation. Moreover, if the parties ask, then all the proceedings and outcomes can be kept confidential which is not the case in other systems. In addition, mostly arbitrators allow the victims or the affecters from both the sides to present their case. This gives a better and first hand picture of the case and their direct participation. The general perception about the courtroom environment and its proceedings is that they occur in tense, aggressive, and stressed environments (Breger, Schatz, & Laufer, pp. 121-124, 2001). It is difficult to disagree from this point because this is very much true in most of the situations. However, arbitration and others forms of alternative dispute resolution provide a more friendlier and cooperative environment. Moreover, parties find their cases ending up on a cooperative note where they may decide to have further dealings as it happened in the example of Texaco and Borden. There is another perspective to the benefits of arbitration that it has the capability of including more people in the process than the traditional court system (Atlas, Huber & Trachte-Huber, pp. 3-7, 2000). Also, important here to note is that this alternative dispute resolution is in no way, in tussle with, the traditional court system. In fact, the legal authorities appreciate the existence of these other forms of dispute resolution. This appreciation is there because if people are using these other acceptable forms of justice then they are actually reducing the cost of government (Fisher & Phillips, pp. 16-45, 1989). The legal system is already preoccupied with thousands of pending cases. In this way, the feel that someone is sharing their burden and giving them a chance to work efficiently. It is quite understandable here to conclude that arbitration and other forms of alternative disputer resolution are helping the legal system to work efficiently and making justice accessible to people on a lower cost of time and money. It is also making the legal system effective by providing a wider range of issues on which they parties can bring their concerns on. Therefore, without any doubts, these alternative dispute resolution methods, in most of the cases, are strengthening the law and justice system all around the world. Presentation Presentations are the most common form of expressing your ideas in front a group of people. They provide a formal way of interacting face to face with the concerned audience. Since presentations are open to questions, therefore, they make the audiences feel that they are a part of it. Group presentations are even a better way for the same. They can divide the responsibilities according to the expertise of the group members. Moreover, with more people working on a project, the probability of having more innovative and creative ideas increases drastically. In fact, having a group presentation creates a self-check system where the others members of the group offer these services to make any possible corrections before the audiences identify that. References Atlas, Nancy F., Huber, Stephen K., & Trachte-Huber. E. W. (2000). Alternative Dispute Resolution. American Bar Association. Breger, Marshall J., Schatz, Gerald S., & Laufer, Deborah S. (2001). Federal Administrative Dispute Resolution Deskbook. American Bar Association. Estreicher, Samuel, & Sherwyn, David. (2004). Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Arena. Kluwer Law International. Fisher, Bruce D., & Phillips, Michael J. (1989). The Legal Environment of Business. West Pub. Co. Paulsson, Jan., & Freshfields (1999). The Freshfields Guide to Arbitration and ADR: clauses in International Contracts. Kluwer Law International. Reilly, M. Therese., & MacKenzie, Deborah L. (1999). ADR in the Corporate Environment. CCH Canadian Limited. Waites, Richard. (2003). Courtroom Psychology and Trial Advocacy. ALM Publishing. Read More