1.
Arbitration
–
Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution, is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. The parties to a dispute refer it to arbitration by one or more persons, a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts. Arbitration is often used for the resolution of disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. Arbitration can be voluntary or mandatory and can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration is similar to mediation in that a decision cannot be imposed on the parties, by one definition arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is therefore technically not arbitration. Arbitration is a proceeding in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial adjudicator whose decision the parties to the dispute have agreed, or legislation has decreed, will be final, there are limited rights of review and appeal of arbitration awards. This is especially useful when the matter of the dispute is highly technical. Arbitration is often faster than litigation in court, because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958, arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce in other nations than court verdicts. In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, if the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case. Although usually thought to be speedier, when there are multiple arbitrators on the panel, discovery may be more limited in arbitration or entirely nonexistent. The potential to generate billings by attorneys may be less than pursuing the dispute through trial, unlike court judgments, arbitration awards themselves are not directly enforceable. A party seeking to enforce an arbitration award must resort to judicial remedies, by their nature, the subject matter of some disputes is not capable of arbitration. For example, until the 1980s, antitrust matters were not arbitrable in the United States. Matters relating to crimes, status and family law are not considered to be arbitrable. However, most other disputes that involve private rights between two parties can be resolved using arbitration, in some disputes, parts of claims may be arbitrable and other parts not. Some legal orders exclude or restrict the possibility of arbitration for reasons of the protection of members of the public. Arbitration agreements are generally divided into two types, Agreements which provide that, if a dispute should arise, it will be resolved by arbitration, sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration agreement. For example, in certain Commonwealth countries, it is possible to provide each party should bear their own costs in a conventional arbitration clause
2.
Mediation
–
All participants in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the process. Mediation is a process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights. The mediator uses a variety of techniques to guide the process in a constructive direction. A mediator is facilitative in that s/he manages the interaction between parties and facilitates open communication, Mediation is also evaluative in that the mediator analyzes issues and relevant norms, while refraining from providing prescriptive advice to the parties. Mediation, as used in law, is a form of dispute resolution. Typically, a party, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a variety of domains, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community, the term mediation broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that ordinary negotiation lacks, the process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. The mediator acts as a third party and facilitates rather than directs the process. Mediation is becoming a peaceful and internationally accepted solution in order to end conflict. Mediation can be used to resolve disputes of any magnitude, Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue and empathy between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much depends on the skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs, certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, while a case in the hands of a lawyer or a court may take months or years to resolve, mediation usually achieves a resolution in a matter of hours. Taking less time means expending less money on hourly fees and costs, confidentiality While court hearings are public, mediation remains strictly confidential. No one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator or mediators know what happened, confidentiality in mediation has such importance that in most cases the legal system cannot force a mediator to testify in court as to the content or progress of mediation. Many mediators destroy their notes taken during a mediation once that mediation has finished, the only exceptions to such strict confidentiality usually involve child abuse or actual or threatened criminal acts. Control Mediation increases the control the parties have over the resolution, in a court case, the parties obtain a resolution, but control resides with the judge or jury. Often, a judge or jury cannot legally provide solutions that emerge in mediation, thus, mediation is more likely to produce a result that is mutually agreeable for the parties
3.
Negotiation
–
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with respect to at least one of these issues. This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved and it is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the solution is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful. In many cases, negotiation is not a game, allowing for cooperation to improve the results of the negotiation. People negotiate daily, often without considering it a negotiation, professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiator, or hostage negotiators. They may also work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators, Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position in a formal setting to an informal negotiation between friends. Negotiation can be contrasted with mediation, where a third party listens to each sides arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It can also be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding, in arbitration, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator decides the outcome. This negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation, Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation. Different theorists use different labels for the two types and distinguish them in different ways. Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation and attempts to distribute a fixed pie of benefits, distributive negotiation operates under zero sum conditions and implies that any gain one party makes is at the expense of the other and vice versa. For this reason, distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one persons gain results in another persons loss, distributive negotiation examples include haggling prices on an open market, including the negotiation of the price of a car or a home. Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value, a distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future. Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, or principled negotiation and it is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties value various outcomes differently. While distributive negotiation assumes there is an amount of value to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation. Integrative negotiation often involves a degree of trust and the forming of a relationship. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual gains and it is also sometimes called win-win negotiation
4.
Conflict resolution
–
Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed, cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs and perspectives and understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict, behavioral resolution is how one thinks the disputants act, their behavior. Ultimately, a range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy. The term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, furthermore, the concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution. Conflict resolution as a field is relatively new. George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, was the first university to offer a PhD program, according to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection of two dimensions ultimately leads individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution. The dual model identifies five conflict resolution styles/strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals, during conflict, these avoiders adopt a “wait and see” attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement. By neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester out of control, yielding conflict style In contrast, yielding or “accommodating” conflict styles are characterized by a high level of concern for others and a low level of concern for oneself. When faced with conflict, individuals with a yielding conflict style tend to give into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship, competitive conflict style The competitive or “fighting” conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness and minimizes empathy. Groups consisting of members generally enjoy seeking domination over others. Fighters tend to others to accept their personal views by employing competitive power tactics that foster feelings of intimidation. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals using this type of conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic, by seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a “win-win” solution. Conciliation conflict style The conciliation or “compromising” conflict style is typical of individuals who possess a level of concern for both personal and others’ outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions, by accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution. This conflict style can be considered an extension of both “yielding” and “cooperative” strategies, wars may occur between warring parties who contest an incompatibility
5.
Restorative justice
–
This contrasts to more punitive approaches where the main aim is retributive justice or to satisfy abstract legal principles. Victims take a role in the process. Meanwhile, offenders take meaningful responsibility for their actions, taking the opportunity to right their wrongs and redeem themselves, in their own eyes, in addition, the restorative justice approach aims to help the offender to avoid future offenses. The approach is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community, Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender has shown the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability. With crime, restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts and it follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be central to the process. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take a role in addressing that crime. The process of restorative justice thus shifts the responsibility for addressing crime, Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer, according to Howard Zehr, restorative justice differs from traditional criminal justice in terms of the guiding questions it asks. In restorative justice, the questions are, Who has been hurt, who has a stake in the situation. What is the process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes. In contrast, traditional criminal justice asks, What laws have been broken, Restorative justice is also different from the adversarial legal process or that of civil litigation. As Braithwaite writes, Court-annexed ADR and restorative justice could not be further apart. Restorative approaches to crime date back thousands of years, in Sumer, the Code of Ur-Nammu required restitution for violent offenses. In Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed restitution for property offenses, in Israel, the Pentateuch specified restitution for property crimes. See for example Exodus 22, 1-14, in Rome, the Twelve Tables compelled convicted thieves to pay double the value of stolen goods. In Ireland, under the Brehon Laws compensation was the mode of justice for most crimes, in Gaul, tribal laws promulgated by King Clovis I called for restitutive sanctions for both violent and nonviolent offenses. In England, the Laws of Æthelberht of Kent included detailed restitution schedules, following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A. D. Retributive justice began to replace such systems. William the Conquerors son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the kings peace, by the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state
