Abstract
One of the defining features of a healthy new body of knowledge and practice such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is its ability to ask difficult questions of itself and, indeed, to questions its own dogma. A dogma is a basic belief, principle, doctrine or code. Questioning dogma is a good thing. It makes our knowledge and practice as ADR practitioners sharper and deeper. It also makes our field more transparent and accountable and this, of course, greatly enhances the credibility of our field. This paper examines one of the dogmas of ADR, and questions the validity of that dogma. That dogma, broadly stated, is that there are costs saving and benefits associated with the use of ADR. This paper examines a threshold issue before that assertion can be tested and that is: compared to what? In other words, what are the costs of the conflict or dispute that are supposed to be saved as a result of the application of ADR? This paper looks at the two sources of information or data available to study the costs of conflict. The first source is empirical data where those costs have been measured and recorded by independent sources. The second source is purely circumstantial – it is evidence of the very widespread use of ADR in the commercial sector in circumstances where the inference can reasonably be drawn that there are cost savings and benefits derived from ADR and where some evidence is available, though it is not always very reliable. The paper will conclude that very little is, in fact, known about the costs of conflict. More contemporary Australian research is needed in this regard. Without a proper understanding of what are the costs associated with conflict and disputes, it is very difficult indeed to measure the benefits of ADR.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Number of pages | 15 |
Journal | Arbitrator and Mediator |
Publication status | Published - 2004 |
Keywords
- dispute resolution (law)
- mediation