{"id":7526,"date":"2017-12-31T10:35:29","date_gmt":"2017-12-31T09:35:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/?p=7526"},"modified":"2017-12-31T10:35:29","modified_gmt":"2017-12-31T09:35:29","slug":"alternative-dispute-resolution-or-legalism-beyond-the-schism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/2017\/alternative-dispute-resolution-or-legalism-beyond-the-schism\/","title":{"rendered":"Alternative Dispute Resolution or Legalism? Beyond the Schism!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/papers\/G-I-WP-2017-12-ADRL.pdf\"><strong>Executive Summary<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Under the umbrella term <em>Alternative Dispute Resolution<\/em> (ADR), discourses around mediation and other non-judicial approaches to conflict resolution have been constrained by a predominantly legal narrative ultimately founded on an `either-or&#8217; dichotomy between status quos instead of allowing a third way resting on a `both-and&#8217; approach. The highly influential ADR critic Owen M. Fiss rejected ADR as a threat to human rights, public values and justice. He argued that the legal script is the only reliable bulwark against demoralization under the spread of capitalism, and a yardstick by which public values can be maintained. Given the increasing commodification of justice and the law&#8217;s blindness for complex processes and structures, it is apparent that the legal tradition by itself has proven to be incapable of defending these values effectively. An approach to conflict transformation &#8212; which goes beyond being an Alternative Dispute Resolution to the judicial process, and transcends the dualism of either-or &#8212; may offer a more adequate response to address the challenges Fiss was justifiably concerned about. Mutli-disciplinary problem-solving teams, deep reconciliation and dialogue approaches are needed to address underlying conflicts the symptoms of which may become salient as legal breaches.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/papers\/G-I-WP-2017-12-ADRL.pdf\"><strong>Click here to download the Working Paper<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Table of Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I: Introduction: Is legalism better suited for dispute resolution?<br \/>\nII: Key Diagnosis: High risk of commodified justice<br \/>\nIII: Key Prognosis: Careful: Capital may subvert the rule of law<br \/>\nIV: Key Therapy: Conflict Transformation conciles legalism &amp; ADR<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/papers\/G-I-WP-2017-12-ADRL.pdf\"><strong>Click here to download the Working Paper<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Executive Summary Under the umbrella term Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), discourses around mediation and other non-judicial approaches to conflict resolution have been constrained by a predominantly legal narrative ultimately founded on an `either-or&#8217; dichotomy between status quos instead of allowing a third way resting on a `both-and&#8217; approach. The highly influential ADR critic Owen M. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1514,"featured_media":7527,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[188,15],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-announcements","category-foodforthought"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7526"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7526\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7532,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7526\/revisions\/7532"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7527"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7526"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}