Theory of Dispute Resolution - Dispute between Shylock and Antonio Essay

Theory of Dispute Resolution - Dispute between Shylock and Antonio (Merchant of Venice) - Essay Example 1 The play does not only have an entire scene depicting a courtroom trial that had been the prime source of dispute resolution in that era and this method is also known as â€Å"litigation†, but play has also paved way for legal analysis and â€Å"Alternative Dispute Resolution†. The term â€Å"Alternative Dispute Resolution† or â€Å"ADR† refers to a repertoire of mechanism that can substitute court trials and litigation efforts to resolve a dispute; they largely entail discussions between the disputant parties. 2 ADR is further subdivided into negotiation, mediation, arbitration or adjudication and ombudsmen schemes; these methods are also known as â€Å"out-of-court settlements† and often entail the involvement of a third party to assess the situation and give their unbiased opinions on the matter. Although, ADR methods cannot substitute courtroom trials or litigations in all matters but they are cost-effective and are less time consuming. ADR me thods actually aim to eradicate the root or the main cause of dispute that enables the disputant parties to resolve their issue as healthily as possible without having any detrimental repercussions on any of the parties involved. It is important to understand that the procedures followed by each of the ADR methods is essentially the same, the only difference lies in the implementation of the final verdicts. Hence, the decisions in a dispute are non-binding if they are made through â€Å"mediation† and â€Å"negotiations†3. On the other hand, all decisions can either be binding or non-binding if they are made through arbitration and adjudication, respectively. It largely depends upon the agreement made with the third party. Arbitration is binding, the verdict is implemented whether the decision is approved by either parties or not; whereas, adjudication is non-binding and if the verdicts are not approved by the parties then it is nullified and the parties can actually a pproach the court for a resolution. Thus, it can be deduced that for ADR methods to work, the entire process is largely contingent upon the willingness of the parties to establish a truce. In case, ADR fails to find a solution to the problem then litigation serves as a last resort method to aid the individuals in reaching an agreement. Adjudication or arbitration is often referred to as a private version of a courtroom trial but is a much more formal process than a court hearing. All of ADR methods parallel each other in many ways but there are certain differences that stem from how binding the verdict is and the degree of involvement of the third party in aiding the communication between the disputant individuals or groups. 4 For instance even mediation is a parallel of litigation in every way but there some very substantial differences in the way how things are assessed in a dispute. Unlike litigation that is usually implemented in accordance with a legal principle, the guiding pr inciples in mediation can be legal, moral or religious and it is up to the disputant parties to choose a method that fulfil the parties’ needs. Justice is brought about through two aspects; the rudiments and the process through which those rudiments or standards are applied. It is apparent that adjudicative measures in resolving issues can result in a bias in the case and the justice arising from it is established using a specific line of thinking