Dispute resolution

This article needs additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this articlebyadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:"Dispute resolution"–news·newspapers·books·scholar·JSTOR (February 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Conflict resolution
Nonviolence
Arbitration Auction Conciliation Law Dispute resolution Rule of law Collaborative Mediation Party-directed Nonviolent Communication Pacifism Negotiation Speaking truth to power
Workplace
Conflict management
Violence
Conflict escalation De-escalation Just war theory War studies
International relations
Appeasement Armistice Brinkmanship Ceasefire Diplomacy Deterrence Multilateralism
Nuclear
Nuclear warfare Nuclear blackmail Mutual assured destruction Nuclear disarmament Nuclear proliferation
Other
Alternative dispute resolution Anti-war movement Conflict avoidance Conflict continuum Conflict style inventory Democracy Family therapy Forum (alternative dispute resolution) Game theory Prisoner's dilemma Paradox of tolerance Liaison officer Non-aggression principle Peace and conflict studies Peace process Peace treaty Peacebuilding Peacemaking Rule of man Track II diplomacy
v t e

Dispute resolutionordispute settlementis the process of resolving disputes betweenparties. The termdispute resolutionisconflict resolutionthroughlegalmeans.^[1]

Prominent venues for dispute settlement ininternational lawinclude theInternational Court of Justice(formerly thePermanent Court of International Justice); theUnited Nations Human Rights Committee(which operates under theICCPR) andEuropean Court of Human Rights; thePanels and Appellate Bodyof theWorld Trade Organization; and theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.^[2]Half of all international agreements include a dispute settlement mechanism.^[3]

States are also known to establish their ownarbitration tribunalsto settle disputes.^[2]Prominent private international courts, which adjudicate disputes between commercial private entities, include theInternational Court of Arbitration(of theInternational Chamber of Commerce) and theLondon Court of International Arbitration.^[4]

Methods of dispute resolution include:

• lawsuits(litigation) (legislative)^[5]
• arbitration
• collaborative law
• mediation
• conciliation
• negotiation
• facilitation
• avoidance

One could theoretically includeviolenceor evenwaras part of this spectrum, but dispute resolution practitioners do not usually do so; violence rarely ends disputes effectively, and indeed, often only escalates them. Also, violence rarely causes the parties involved in the dispute to no longer disagree on the issue that caused the violence. For example, a country successfully winning a war to annex part of another country's territory does not cause the former waring nations to no longer seriously disagree to whom the territory rightly belongs to and tensions may still remain high between the two nations.

Dispute resolution processes fall into two major types:

1. Adjudicativeprocesses, such as litigation or arbitration, in which a judge, jury or arbitrator determines the outcome.
2. Consensual processes, such as collaborative law, mediation, conciliation, or negotiation, in which the parties attempt to reach agreement.

Not all disputes, even those in which skilled intervention occurs, end in resolution. Suchintractabledisputes form a special area in dispute resolution studies.^[6]

Dispute resolution is an important requirement in international trade, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation.^{[7][full citation needed]}

Thelegal systemprovides resolutions for many different types of disputes. Some disputants will not reach agreement through a collaborative process. Some disputes need the coercive power of the state to enforce a resolution. Perhaps more importantly, many people want a professional advocate when they become involved in a dispute, particularly if the dispute involves perceived legal rights, legal wrongdoing, or threat of legal action against them.

The most common form of judicial dispute resolution is litigation. Litigation is initiated when one party files suit against another. In the United States, litigation is facilitated by the government within federal, state, and municipal courts. While litigation is often used to resolve disputes, it is strictly speaking a form of conflict adjudication and not a form of conflict resolution per se. This is because litigation only determines the legal rights and obligations of parties involved in a dispute and does not necessarily solve the disagreement between the parties involved in the dispute. For example, supreme court cases can rule on whether US states have the constitutional right to criminalize abortion but will not cause the parties involved in the case to no longer disagree on whether states do indeed have the constitutional authority to restrict access to abortion as one of the parties may disagree with the supreme courts reasoning and still disagree with the party that the supreme court sided with. Litigation proceedings are very formal and are governed by rules, such as rules of evidence and procedure, which are established by the legislature. Outcomes are decided by an impartialjudgeand/orjury, based on the factual questions of the case and the application law. The verdict of the court is binding, not advisory; however, both parties have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. Judicial dispute resolution is typically adversarial in nature, for example, involving antagonistic parties or opposing interests seeking an outcome most favorable to their position.

Due to the antagonistic nature of litigation, collaborators frequently opt for solving disputes privately.^[8]

Retired judges or private lawyers often become arbitrators or mediators; however, trained and qualified non-legal dispute resolution specialists form a growing body within the field ofalternative dispute resolution(ADR). In the United States, many states now have mediation or other ADR programs annexed to the courts, to facilitate settlement of lawsuits.

Some use the termdispute resolutionto refer only toalternative dispute resolution(ADR), that is, extrajudicial processes such as arbitration, collaborative law, and mediation used to resolve conflict and potential conflict between and among individuals,businessentities, governmental agencies, and (in thepublic international lawcontext)states. ADR generally depends on agreement by the parties to use ADR processes, either before or after a dispute has arisen. ADR has experienced steadily increasing acceptance and utilization because of a perception of greater flexibility, costs below those of traditional litigation, and speedy resolution of disputes, among other perceived advantages. However, some have criticized these methods as taking away the right to seek redress of grievances in thecourts, suggesting that extrajudicial dispute resolution may not offer the fairest way for parties not in an equal bargaining relationship, for example in a dispute between aconsumerand a largecorporation. In addition, in some circumstances, arbitration and other ADR processes may become as expensive as litigation or more so.^{[citation needed]}

• Sherwyn, David, Tracey, Bruce & Zev Eigen, "In Defense of Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes: Saving the Baby, Tossing out the Bath Water, and Constructing a New Sink in the Process", 2U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.73 (1999)
• Ury, William, 2000.The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Putnam.ISBN0-14-029634-4
• Alés, Javier y Mata, Juan Diego " manual práctico para mediadores: el misterio de la mediacion" éxito Atelier. Barcelona 2016