Talk:Dispute resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At what point does the discussion about merger end? I have seen no argument for merger of adjudication and dispute resolution. If the merger heading disappears, does this discussion disappear, too? CAM
The category for adjudication should remain on its own because it has a distinct meaning in the Australian Construction Industry.
I think it should stay. Considering this type of process is available throughout Australia (in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia) as well as New Zealand, it is widespread enough to warrant being present on Wikipedia. Dbmurray
I believe adjudication requires a distinct entry, but the entry on adjudication could be linked to "dispute resolution." Catherine Morris, Director, Peacemakers Trust
- I agree that the article for adjudication should remain separate. It appears to be a unique form of alternative dispute resolution in the Australian administrative law context. --Coolcaesar 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Adjudication and dispute resolution are two very different concepts and definitely should not be treated as the same topic here in Wikipedia. Specifically, adjudication is a form of dispute resolution, of which there are many other types. Dispute resolution, in general, is any process undertaken by disputants under the law or elsewhere to resolve their dispute. Forms of dispute resolution including everything from adjudication (and its many sub-forms) to negotiation and even violence. By contrast, adjudication is a type of dispute resolution in which a neutral third party (such as a judge or jury) is empowered by disputants to render a decision in their dispute. Adjudication includes among its various sub-types litigation and arbitration.208.54.95.129 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that adjudication and dispute resolution are conceptually separate, but there could be improved interplay and cross referencing between the two article. Legis 07:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Removed merge tags Orchid Righteous 09:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-PC dispute resolutions should be included
Early on, the article says: "One could theoretically include violence or even war as part of this spectrum, but dispute resolution practitioners do not usually do so; violence rarely ends disputes effectively, and indeed, often only escalates them.[citation needed]" While this is a very enlightened-seeming point of view, it seems not-actualy factual. While I don't have citations handy, common sense would dictate that the elimination of one of the disputing parties would result in an ending -- a resolution -- of the dispute.
Oh, sure -- it may not be an equitable resolution, or maybe seen as not a fair or preferable one -- but it strikes me as non-factual to exclude the exercise of physical power as a form of dispute resolution, altogether.
I'll try to remember to check back in a few days and, if there aren't any objections, I'll clean up the wording of that part to include even non-PC forms of dispute resolution.
(Edit: forgot to sign.) Oliepedia 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support for merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution
I support merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution pages.
I've been working in the field for some time and earned a graduate degree & juris doctorate focused in ADR (or whatever term best fits for you). The semantics debate in law reviews and in the field itself seems to have died down, as the field has become more established and integrated into the judiciary and businesses.
I would suggest directing searches for Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution to one page where information can be consolidate. There are wonderful resources on each of the respective pages but each page differs.
Perhaps a section to a unified page could be added discussing the evolution of the name of field. All the names of the field tend to be used interchangeably but groups may have different preferences based on common usage due to their geographic region, industry, role or educational program.
A unified page would also help educate potential ADR consumers, litigants, the judiciary, industry and the bar. Separate linked pages could focus on particular processes (example: mediation, consensus building, arbitration, etc.), applications and related organizations.
(Crossposted in Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceweaselqueen (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
