Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Disputes and disagreements are common wherever there exists a relationship whether
commercial or personal. These disputes are required to be addressed and a resolution is
required to be arrived at whenever such a dispute arises. Apart from the formal dispute
redressing and resolution such as litigation there exists other ways for resolution of disputes.
The alternative dispute resolution is an important and effective dispute resolution that can be
effectively applied to disputes in order to achieve a resolution. The alternative dispute
resolution comprises of various methods and techniques through which a dispute can be
resolved. It provides people with a way to avoid the hassles of going to a court whenever they
face a legal dispute. It has the objective of the resolution of disputes, which can be settled
outside the courts. In case of the alternative dispute resolution, a neutral and independent
third party is appointed by the disputing parties who strives to resolve the dispute by
narrowing down the extents of conflict (Sourdin, 2002). Generally, there are four forms of
alternative dispute resolution. These includes mediation, negotiation, arbitration and
conciliation. This essay will strive to analyse and discuss the different advantages and
disadvantages of the different methods of the alternative dispute resolution.
There are several advantages that suggests increased use of the alternative dispute
resolution and demands a more popular us of the same. The first advantage that can be
attributed to the alternative dispute resolution is the time reduction. The various techniques of
alternative dispute resolution provides a speedy and instant remedy to the disputing parties. In
case of litigation, the procedure is quite lengthy and time consuming. This will further have
the option of appeals and judicial review, which might take years or even decades to arrive at
a solution. However, alternative dispute resolution does not have such scope of further
appeals in most of the cases. Again, in case the decision arrived at in an Alternative Dispute
Resolution does not satisfies the disputing parties, there is a scope of internal appeals and
even judicial interventions to be availed with respect to the matter (Astor, & Chinkin, 2002).

2BUSINESS LAW
The alternative dispute resolution methods are economically convenient as a way of
dispute resolution. It takes a much reduced cost in comparison to the litigation. The
appointment of counsels, attorneys and the cost of the proceedings make the litigation much
expensive than the alternative dispute resolution processes. However, the cost of arbitration
generally comprises of the cost of appointing the arbitrator and the minimum price relating to
the proceeding (Callahan, 2006).
In case of the methods of the alternative dispute resolution, the parties have the liberty to
decide or choose, which laws they desire to apply to their dispute resolution. These methods
allows the parties to make choices about the set of rules they desire to apply and the way in
which they are willing to decide their case. Moreover, in case of these methods of dispute
resolution, the parties have the liberty to appoint the third party by whom they wish to resolve
their dispute (Fulton, 1989).
It has been conceived from the previous records of dispute resolution that the settlements
arrived through the methods of alternative dispute resolution are more apt and effective than
the litigation. The history of dispute resolution provides more favourable results to the
settlement arrived through dispute resolution than through litigation. The alternative dispute
resolution has the more escalated efficiency rate than the litigation (Astor, & Chinkin, 2002).
The disputing parties are seemed to be more satisfied with the results of the alternative
dispute resolution than the results of the litigation. The parties are free to decide the set of
rules applicable and the neutral third party they are willing to appoint. There exists a scope of
reliance that the parties feel towards the decision arrived at through the processes of the
alternative disputes resolution. Hence, the parties are more likely to find them satisfactory
and reliable than the decisions of the courts that are arrived at in case of litigation ( Callahan,
2006).