These days, it is common to hear members of the alternative dispute resolution community point out that the moniker “alternative dispute resolution” is a misnomer. If 90-odd% of cases that are not resolved by motion are going to settle, it is pretty difficult to call settlement the alternative dispute resolution. What is somewhat less common is to question whether this is entirely a good thing.
Earlier this year, I published an article in Alternatives, the publication of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), trying to explore the importance of having dispute resolution that actually resolves disputes, and to describe an approach I believe would be useful for both arbitration and special master work.
The CPR and Karl Bayer have been kind enough to allow me to link this article to the blog. It is available at the altnewsletter.com and relates to some of the issues Karl, Jim Rhodes and I have been exploring in our special master blog.
I’d appreciate any comments people may have.
Photo credit: quinn.anya / Foter / CC BY-SA
Related Posts
Fifth Circuit Rules on Section 1782 Discovery Motion for International Arbitration Case
Fifth Circuit: Sham Arbitration Cannot Be Used to Perform an Unlawful Transfer 
SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in Yet Another Class Arbitration Dispute
Legal Authorities and Comparative Law in International Commercial Arbitration
Door Knobs, Factual Disputes & Arbitration
Summary of Managing Construction Conflict: Unfinished Revolution, Continuing Evolution (Part III)
