Appropriate Dispute Resolution

The term appropriate dispute resolution, as distinct from alternative dispute resolution, emphasizes the belief that there is no one-size-fits-all dispute resolution process. Appropriate dispute resolution begins by assessing the conflict to determine which strategy is best suited to the situation. In some cases, the most appropriate approach may be one of the many processes that seek voluntary agreement between the parties—for instance, negotiation, mediation, or med-arb. In other cases, voluntary approaches may be inappropriate. For example, many believe that family mediation should not be used once family disputes become violent. Instead, the conflict should be handled as a criminal matter. In still other cases, the most appropriate approach is one that combines mandatory elements with voluntary ones. For example, victim offender mediation processes may be used once a court determines guilt. Similarly, sensitivity training might be required for people found guilty of sexual harassment. In cases involving serious violations of fundamental human rights in which the perpetrator is unwilling to admit guilt or remedy the situation, the most appropriate approach may involve some type of nonviolent direct action rather than compromise.
Although many people still use the term ADR to refer to alternatives to the court system, it is also commonly used in the sense of appropriate dispute resolution, suggesting that no one alternative is better than another in all circumstances.