Alternative Dispute Resolution

Name
Instructor
Subject
Date
The Relevance of Arbitration as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process in which an arbiter, who is a neutral third party, hears and gives a binding verdict over the dispute (Gelfand and Brett 267). In most cases, the arbiter is an expert or a panel of experts who understands the legal interpretation of the issues arising from the dispute, and the likely larger legal or financial implications if the matter was to be decided by a court. For instance, a conflict pitying two nations over land territory may be referred to a panel of experts in international law. Before going into arbitration, the parties to the dispute agree whether or not to be bound by the arbiter’s judgment. However, arbitration is largely a binding dispute resolution process, especially when the parties state in a contract that any future disputes will be resolved through arbitration. During the dispute hearing stage, the arbiter reviews the arguments and evidence brought forth by the conflicting parties, and imposes a judgment that is not only binding on both parties, but also legally enforceable. The legal authority of the arbiter is provided for by the parties’ prior agreement to employ arbitration to solve any future disputes, or legislation that allows courts to refer certain cases to arbitration. In this regard, the parties to the dispute have limited rights to for a review of or appeal against the arbiter’s judgment. This essay discusses the relevance of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It highlights the factors that make arbitration a desirable dispute resolution process compared to litigation, situations where it is appropriate, as well as its advantages and disadvantages.
Like most other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as negotiation and mediation, arbitration is a private process that involves the adjudication of an impartial party (Coltri 425) . However, unlike in mediation or negotiation, the adjudicator in arbitration has powers to decide the outcome of the process. An important distinction between arbitration on the one hand and mediation and negotiation on the other, is that the arbiter is not merely a medium or a go-between through which the disputing parties can communicate and come to a mutual agreement, but rather, an expert in the issue who performs the role of a judge (Levin 139). Indeed, the arbiter uses the evidence provided by the two sides to come to a decision. Thus, the parties must have agreed priory that the arbiter is qualified and suitable for hearing and resolving the dispute. In a way, the arbitration process is similar to a court process in that both sides are allowed to present their arguments and evidence as they would before a jury. However, there is a difference in that the rules of evidence are a bit relaxed in arbitration. This is because the arbiter’s ultimate goal is not to make a ruling that will pass scrutiny under the legal provisions, but to reach at a solution that is fair to both sides in light of the circumstances surrounding the dispute. Like other non-litigation processes, arbitration seeks to avoid the far reaching consequences of a court procedure, ...