Comparison of Arbitration, Negotiation and Mediation in Alternative Dispute Resolution

This article compares and contrasts the features of arbitration, negotiation and mediation in alternative dispute resolution. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The article concludes that all three methods have their own advantages and disadvantages and can be used according to the needs and suitability of the parties involved. Mediation and arbitration are the most effective methods of alternative dispute resolution which are used to resolve disputes out of traditional court process of litigation.

Running head: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This section of the paper compares and contracts Arbitration, Negotiation and mediation
from each other. Negotiation is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which two individuals
or groups who are in conflict come to settlement by an agreement between themselves. This can
be reached between the parties by discussion among themselves or between their representatives
without involvement of any third party. The party should practically consult a legal practitioner
before signing any document to know their legal rights and duties. Mediation is also a form of
alternative dispute resolution where the parties to the dispute are assisted by a neutral party
(Meyerson 2015). The neutral party in this situation is known as the mediator. The role of the
mediator in this process is to facilitate communication between the parties to the dispute. The
mediator provides assistance in reducing misunderstandings and coming to a settlement.
Arbitration is a more formal way of alternative dispute resolution. In this process decision in
relation to the settlement of a dispute is made by a third party known as the arbitrator (Munk
2016). The arbitrator acts as a judge and hears the case presented by both the parties to the
dispute. Generally unless there is a contrary agreement the awards of an arbitrator are binding on
the parties to the dispute. All three processes have their own features. For example negotiation is
the most cost-effective process as it does not involve apart for him however it is also maybe very
less effective because of failed communication between the parties. Mediation is bit more
expensive and time consuming as compared to negotiation as it involves the third person who
might have to be paid. in the process of mediation dispute can be resolved more easily as
compared to negotiation as the role of the mediator is to facilitate effective communication
between the parties so that the dispute can be resolved easily (Dye 2017). The process of
arbitration is much more expensive as compared to mediation and negotiation. This is because in
this process and arbitrator has to be appointed presides over the dispute and makes an award in

2ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
relation to the settlement. It also takes more time as compared to negotiation and mediation.
However arbitration is much more effective as compared to mediation and negotiation when it
comes to resolving disputes. This is mainly because the decision of the arbitrator is binding on
the parties and the decision is made in accordance to the existing laws and facts of the dispute.
The decisions taken in negotiation and mediation may not be binding on the parties and therefore
there is a significant chance for a dispute between the parties. In conclusion it can be stated that
all three methods of alternative dispute resolution have their own advantage and disadvantages
and can be used according to the needs and suitability of the parties. In situation when
negotiations are very cost-effective it does not generate certainty like that in case of arbitration.
On the other hand results of mediation may always not be able to resolve the dispute between the
parties. However all three methods of dispute resolution discussed above are quick and effective
as compared to traditional litigation process.
Mediation and arbitration are the most effective methods of alternative dispute resolution
which are used to resolve disputes out of traditional court process of litigation. Traditional
litigation includes litany of paperwork and heavy procedure. The process involved in litigation
takes a significant amount of resources and time all of which are typically billable at an hourly
basis at law firms. When a case has been mitigated it can take almost months or years to be
resolved by the use of the court system (Hammer, Hendy and Kelly 2014). The process drains
both the parties who are waiting for getting the result in their favour of their resources and time.
Through the process of alternative dispute resolution disputes can be resolved without the
inclusion of the procedures involved in litigation. This makes sure that the cost and time which is
involved in the process of litigation is very less in the process of ADR. Arbitration especially can
work exactly like litigation but involves very less time and money. In this process decision in

3ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
relation to the settlement of a dispute is made by a third party known as the arbitrator (Hyman
2015). The arbitrator acts as a judge and hears the case presented by both the parties to the
dispute. Generally unless there is a contrary agreement the awards of an arbitrator are binding on
the parties to the dispute. Mediation can also be applied by the parties for resolving disputes of
less complexity to save time and money.

4ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
References
Dye, J.C., 2017. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Catholic Lawyer, 33(1), p.12.
Hammer, R., Hendy, J. and Kelly, D., 2014. Alternative Dispute Resolution. In Business
Law (pp. 133-160). Routledge.
Hyman, J., 2015. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Meyerson, A.L., 2015. Alternative Dispute Resolution. GPSolo, 32, p.6.
Munk, R., 2016. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. CER Comparative European
Research 2016, p.58.