http://mediationchannel.com/2008/03/10/debating-the-meaning-of-the-a-in-adr/ Talking about mediation, negotiation, conflict resolution, and law Mon, 17 May 2010 12:20:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://mediationchannel.com/2008/03/10/debating-the-meaning-of-the-a-in-adr/#comment-1472 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:31:54 +0000 http://mediationchannel.com/2008/03/10/debating-the-meaning-of-the-a-in-adr/#comment-1472 I think “A” for Alternative is better. I will stick to it because it means there is a choice.
emmy Irobi
mediator from Poland

]]> http://mediationchannel.com/2008/03/10/debating-the-meaning-of-the-a-in-adr/#comment-1473 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:16:18 +0000 http://mediationchannel.com/2008/03/10/debating-the-meaning-of-the-a-in-adr/#comment-1473 As usual, you combine food with dispute resolution. How can you go wrong? Anyway, the “A” in ADR was conceived to distinguish it from the traditional litigation process and as a, dare I say it, marketing tool to assist others in understanding what this stuff was all about. Somewhere along the line, “A” was changed from “Alternative” to the courts to “Appropriate,” as a variety of processes, including adjudication became more widely available and acceptable. The person who thought that litigation is never appropriate is either very misinformed about what the litigation process does (ever heard of “Brown v the Board of Education?”) or needs a refresher course in self-determination and informed decision-making. One of the main goals of ADR – whether alternative or appropriate – has been to provide choice.

]]>