Conflict Resolution and a Critique of "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (From Criminology as Peacemaking, 1991, P 263-279, Harold E. Pepinsky, Richard Quinney, eds. -- See NCJ-138513)

• NCJ Number: 138521
• Author(s): J A Scimecca
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: Indiana University Press
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This essay differentiates between conflict resolution, conflict management, and conflict settlement and shows that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a quickly growing phenomenon often confused with conflict resolution, is not conflict resolution.

Abstract

Criticisms of ADR that relate to its being a mechanism for social control are identified as these are the most important for understanding whether ADR holds any real potential for peacemaking. ADR lacks a reasoned justification that arises out of any broad concept of conflict. A second criticism is that ADR, similar to formal law, is embedded in individualism and, consequently, the fundamental principle of individual responsibility is seen as the cause of the conflict. Other criticisms relate to ADR's emphasis upon misunderstandings as opposed to questions of power and structure, the question of the supposed neutrality of the third party, and its neglect of its original concern for the poor and for all who do not have access to the law. The final criticism is that, more than an alternative to courts, ADR represents an alternative to politics and community organization that lacks any organic connection to communities. ADR emerges as another mechanism for control. In contrast, conflict resolution provides tremendous potential for peacemaking and the establishment of social equality. 49 references