Theory of Dispute Resolution - Dispute between Shylock and Antonio Essay

Theory of Dispute Resolution - Dispute between Shylock and Antonio (Merchant of Venice) - shew Example1 The play does not only have an entire scene depicting a courtroom trial that had been the prime source of enmity resolution in that era and this method is overly known as judicial proceeding, and play has also paved way for legal compend and Alternative Dispute Resolution. The term Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a repertoire of mechanism that can substitute court trials and litigation efforts to resolve a dispute they for the most part think 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 out-of-court settlements and often entail the involvement of a third party to assess the situation and give their un preconceptioned 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 methods 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 slaying of the final finding of facts. Hence, the decisions in a dispute are non-binding if they are made done mediation and negotiations3. On the former(a) 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 sanctioned by either parties or not whereas, adjudication is non-binding and if the verdicts are not approved by the parties the n it is cancel and the parties can actually approach 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. hostile litigation that is usually implemented in a ccordance with a legal principle, the guiding principles 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