Why ADR?
ADR is an acronym for “alternative dispute resolution”. Dispute resolution refers to the settlement of conflict that may arise between people in a variety of situations. Conflicts, of course, can be settled in many different ways. In everyday life, people often try simple persuasion. In some cases, where power imbalances exist, persuasion can look a lot like intimidation. In extreme cases, people sometimes resort to violence. Indeed, at an earlier time in history, duelling was seen as a quick and effective method of resolving disputes, especially when honour was at stake. Even today, people sometimes take matters into their own hands when they feel that they have no other choice. Because violence and strife is generally seen as harmful to the well-being of society, legal systems have evolved over thousands of years to provide alternatives to these less than satisfactory approaches.
From quite an early point in human history, people have appreciated the benefit of involving neutral third parties to help them resolve their disputes. This appreciation ultimately resulted in the development of a system of courts, where people could go to assert their legal rights and remedies. Over time, procedures and rules of evidence were developed to ensure a degree of fairness and reliability in the process. The result was a system of dispute resolution that lawyers refer to as litigation. In this sense, taking someone to court was an early form of alternative dispute resolution -- an alternative, that is, to pistols at dawn.
Litigation has lately come to be seen as something to be avoided at all costs. In recent times, the fear of long delays, high costs, and unpredictable or unsatisfactory results has caused people to look more carefully at other methods for managing and resolving conflict. From its earliest days, the term ADR generally referred to an array of processes designed to divert disputes away from the courts. Today, however, it is more often recognized that litigation continues to occupy an important place in the spectrum of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms and need not be the standard against which all other processes are considered to be “alternative”. ADR, therefore, should be seen as the full range of approaches to conflict resolution, including negotiation, mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and litigation.
From quite an early point in human history, people have appreciated the benefit of involving neutral third parties to help them resolve their disputes. This appreciation ultimately resulted in the development of a system of courts, where people could go to assert their legal rights and remedies. Over time, procedures and rules of evidence were developed to ensure a degree of fairness and reliability in the process. The result was a system of dispute resolution that lawyers refer to as litigation. In this sense, taking someone to court was an early form of alternative dispute resolution -- an alternative, that is, to pistols at dawn.
Litigation has lately come to be seen as something to be avoided at all costs. In recent times, the fear of long delays, high costs, and unpredictable or unsatisfactory results has caused people to look more carefully at other methods for managing and resolving conflict. From its earliest days, the term ADR generally referred to an array of processes designed to divert disputes away from the courts. Today, however, it is more often recognized that litigation continues to occupy an important place in the spectrum of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms and need not be the standard against which all other processes are considered to be “alternative”. ADR, therefore, should be seen as the full range of approaches to conflict resolution, including negotiation, mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and litigation.