Dispute Resolution Methods
Because we live in a society, there is bound to be disputes. Opinions tend to clash and might sometimes lead to violence if not efficiently handled or managed. There are two ways of handling disputes. They are adjudicatory and non adjudicatory methods of dispute resolution. Adjudication involves going to court while non adjudication involves every other process of resolving disputes that does not involve going to court.
Adjudicatory method
Adjudication popularly known as litigation is settlement of disputes in law courts. The litigants who filed an action in the court of law initiates the process of litigation against the other party who is then called open to defend the suit and a third party called the judge or adjudicator is called upon to preside over the matter and resolve it in favour of one of the parties. The decision of the court is binding on the parties. The judge adopt two methods in finding out the facts of the dispute.
The most popular one is adversarial method which involves the parties in the dispute calling on witnesses and presenting their evidence in man is most favourable to themselves. The judge has no right to ask the witnesses questions except to clear the vagueness or ambiguity of the answer given by the witnesses. At the end, the judge is expected to make up his mind based on the evidence that has been presented to him by both parties. The party with the most convincing argument wins the case.
The second method that the court can adopt in resolving the disputes is inquisitorial method. here the court is actively involved in proving the facts of the dispute by investigating the case on its own. This method is usually used in countries with civil legal systems such as France and Italy.
Going to court to resolve disputes has its perks.
It reduces the elements of bias in adjudication. This is because the adjudicator only works with the evidence provided and arguments canvassed by the parties. So when he tends to pervert Justice, it will be easily detected by both parties or even by a third party.
The parties to the dispute are given chances to prove their cases. They are presented with a 50/50 chance of winning or losing their case. Their loss or gain depends on the weight of their argument.
The parties also have the opportunity to discredit the case of the other party to the best of his ability.
Dispute resolution in law courts also has its disadvantages.
The party with the best lawyer always wins the case. A party without an experienced lawyer will definitely have no case against the party whose lawyer is well-versed and experienced. An experienced lawyer would go to any length to produce admissible evidence such as forging documents to ensure that they win the case. These at most times sees that justice is not done.
Cases in courts take longer times to be determined. This is mainly because most lawyers see it as a way of continuing legal fights instead of resolving disputes. This makes dispute resolution sometimes acrimonious in character.
Non adjudicatory method of dispute resolution
This method is popularly known as Aternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). parties to a dispute and not required to appear before formal institutions or authorities. This is the oldest method of dispute resolution. Disputes are resolved through bargains between the parties or through a third party's nterference. The court recognises this form of dispute resolution and has laid down rules and regulations for it. Non adjudicatory method of dispute resolution are; reconciliation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration.
Reconciliation: This involves both parties in a dispute conferring together and reaching an agreement on how to restore peace. No third party is involved in settling disputes between the disputing parties. The agreement reached between the parties are not usually binding. They are only binding by honor. a party might choose to go against their terms of settlement but this is not usually the best form of approach.
Conciliation: In this form of resolving disputes a neutral party to the dispute who is known as a conciliator brings the disputing parties together and acts as an intermediary or middle man in their dispute settlement. The conciliator is merely a guide and so the parties to the dispute are not bound to follow his advice or decisions. If the parties are not happy with the way the conciliator had settled their dispute, they are free to find another person to serve as a conciliator between them. A conciliator can abortion blames to the parties and make them see where they had gone wrong. This helps in effective resolution of the dispute.
Mediation: a third-party known as a mediator is invited to serve as a middleman between the two disputing parties. He does not try to apportion blame but rather he seeks to provide an acceptable solution so that there will be peace and harmony between the disputing parties. His or her decision is not binding on the parties.
Arbitration: An arbitrator is a person who is qualified in law to resolve disputes. the arbitrator probes into the facts of the dispute in a fair detail and renders a decision on merits. The arbitrator has the final say. he determines who is wrong and who is right in a dispute. The parties are bound by the decision of the arbitrator. The decision made by an arbitrator is recognised and strongly enforced on the both parties by law.
The non adjudicatory methods of dispute resolution decongest the courts. It saves time as it avoid delays associated with adjudicatory trials. Resolving disputes through this method is better than going to court because both parties to the dispute has control over their own fate and both decides on the terms on which their disputes will be settled thereby preventing against future clashes as regards the matter adjudicated upon. Itt is sad that the decisions reached through this method of not going to court is not binding. Parties to the dispute can decide to go back on the terms of settlement when they see that those terms do not favour them.
It is pertinent to say that the best way of resolving disputes is by not getting into disputes at all. it is better to save ourselves the struggle and stress of fighting other people or disputing with them over matters that would eventually cost us time and money. It is better to learn to tolerate each other as individuals in a society. We should only get into disputes when it becomes unavoidable.
