Suchergebnisse

THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED ON TWO JUDICIAL REFROMS DESIGNED TO DIVERT DISPUTES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE RESOLUTION IN COURT: MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, IS EXAMINED. THESE NON-ADJUDICATIVE METHODS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO HELP RELIEVE CASELOAD PRESSURES IN THE COURTS, TO LOWER COSTS AND REDUCE DELAY IN REACHING FINAL RESOLUTION. THE ANALYSIS HEREIN SUGGESTS THAT ALTHOUGH NOT ALL ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION HAVE MATERIALIZED, THEY HAVE PROVEN TO BE VALUABLE ALTERNATIVES IN TERMS OF COSTS, FLEXIBILTY AND FAIRNESS.

Advocates claim mediation & arbitration to be superior to adjudication in three areas: reduction of court caseloads & costs; increased accessibility of justice; & improvement in the quality of justice. Available evidence shows that mediation & arbitration neither lower court costs (though they increase court capacity), nor substantially expand access to justice. By some measures, however, mediation provides fairer outcomes &, in civil cases, higher rates of compliance than does adjudication. Though less effective than often claimed in reducing problems of administering justice, mediation & arbitration -- do offer modestly effective alternatives to court. 37 References. HA.

ABSTRACTAdvocates of mediation and arbitration claim their to adjudication in three areas: reduction of court caseloads and costs; increase in accessibility of justice; and improvement in the quality of justice. Available evidence shows that mediation and arbitration neither lower court costs (though they increase court capacity), nor substantially expand access to justice. By some measures, however, mediation provides fairer outcomes and, in civil cases, higher rates of compliance than does adjudication. Though less effective than often claimed in reducing problems of administering justice, mediation and arbitration‐in their distinctive ways‐do thus offer modestly effective alternatives to court.

AbstractMediation is a valued alternative dispute resolution process in commercial business disputes. When used prior to arbitration or litigation, mediation is helpful in narrowing disputes and supporting settlement. When included as a supplemental step within other processes, mediation has additional benefits. It is worthwhile to explore the barriers and benefits counsel cite regarding mediation. We will consider participants' underlying assumptions surrounding how and when to mediate using American Arbitration Association® (AAA) User Surveys and data from 2,814 AAA cases closed in 2018. Practice and extant literature indicate that early mediation reduces the financial, emotional, and relational costs of business disputes.

Existing literature on bias and third-party conflict management mainly focuses on the dichotomy of whether the mediator's bias as a whole can contribute to mediation onset and outcomes. I argue that we need more specific and disaggregated research on the mediator's bias because the side on which a prospective mediator's bias lies may significantly affect the likelihood of mediation onset. Why are some biased mediations initiated by third parties while others are not? By disentangling the mediator's bias and by distinguishing between different levels of bias, I find that the likelihood of mediation onset tends to increase if the potential mediator shares a closer political relationship with a conflicting state that has greater national capabilities or that is more authoritarian than the counterparty. However, the effect is largely conditional on the levels of the mediator's bias, where a more obvious level of bias is more likely to facilitate mediation initiation. This article advances our understanding of bias and international conflict mediation.