The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods has become more popular because this strategy enables people to get rapid and cheaper access to justice. Furthermore, these approaches help people restore their relations. In this case, one should speak about such techniques as negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.
However, it is important to remember that ADR tools do not always have a binding power, and they may not be applicable to a wide range of conflicts, especially those ones that can affect many stakeholders. These are the main details that should be discussed more closely.
At first, it is important to mention that the use of ADR methods is usually less expensive. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about negotiation. In many cases, this ADR approach helps disputants reduce expenditures such as the fees of lawyers (Vago 199). Furthermore, this form of interaction can be useful for avoiding delays.
This advantage is particularly important at the time when modern courts have to struggle with the increasing caseload. So, many judges suggest that the parties should consider the use of ADR since this approach can eliminate many bureaucratic difficulties.
Additionally, ADR methods often require the participation of an arbiter. This person may not necessarily be a lawyer, but in many cases, he/she acts as an authority figure for community members. The decisions of this individual are more likely to be accepted by disputants. This tendency can be observed in those communities in which religious leaders play an important role.
Additionally, very often parties prefer to use the services of a legal expert who can act as an arbiter. This person can help the participants predict the most likely outcome of the litigation. The services of such professionals can be critical when the parties want to preserve the confidentiality of their information.
Nevertheless, ADR techniques have considerable limitations. In particular, one should point out that disputants may differ in terms of the financial resources that are available to them. For instance, it is possible to speak about the conflicts between separate employees and organisations such as corporations that can spend millions on lawyers.
These organisations are more ready to go to the court. Furthermore, much depends on the nature of the dispute, itself. ADR procedures are not applicable to those situations when a person or a company is involved in illegal activities that can pose a threat to various stakeholders. This is one of the problems that should not be overlooked.
Moreover, these methods are not fully relevant to those cases when the two parties are no longer willing to continue relations with one another. Under such circumstances, the participants may decide to go to the court. Yet, despite these limitations, ADR tends to become a very popular substitute to litigation. This is why modern law students take various courses related to ADR (Vago 201). Thus, this trend is likely to persist in the future.
Overall, these examples suggest that modern people try to avoid litigation when it is possible. They act in this way because they do not want to deal with such problems as delays and excessive expenditures. Admittedly, ADR cannot be viewed as a universal solution to various conflicts. Nevertheless, such procedures enable people and organisations to avoid various bureaucratic difficulties related to legal procedures. Finally, these tools are important for securing the confidential information.
Works Cited
Vago, Steven. Law and Society, New York: Pearson, 2012. Print.