NCJ Number
100843
Journal
Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume: 1985 Dated: (1985) Pages: 1-23
Date Published
1985
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This paper considers the three basic issues all alternative dispute paradigms.
Abstract
One basic issue for all ADR programs is whether the use of negotiation as the primary dispute settlement method promotes any social or institutional goals. The second issue relates to the types of jurisdictional exemptions, if any, that should attach to the use of the negotiation procedure. The third issue concerns the types of tasks and responsibilities attached to the various participants and the auxiliary roles designed to facilitate the negotiated settlement. The ADR paradigms reviewed are distinguished by the type of discretion accorded negotiators in influencing agreements. An institutional ADR program permits negotiators to resolve issues in a manner acceptable to them so long as the agreement does not conflict with institutional goals and policies. The legal ADR paradigm permits parties to reach any agreement consistent with legal rights that could be vindicated in court. Under the social ADR paradigm, negotiators have the discretion to resolve the matter in whatever manner they find acceptable. Under the institutional ADR, negotiators act as ''compliance officers,' and in the legal ADR paradigm their role is as a ''manager.' The negotiator is a ''developer' under the social ADR paradigm. 105 footnotes.