Alternative dispute resolution: An international approach

Book reviews in this article:
Hein Kdtz and Reynald Ottenhof , eds., Les Conciliateurs, La Conciliation .
Jerold Auerbach , Justice Without Law .
Michard L. Abel , ed., The Politics of Informal Justice, Volume 2: Comparative Studies .     

US policy and the Kashmir dispute: prospects for resolution

Washington refuses to chart a roadmap for peace in Kashmir. Although the chances for resolving the dispute are low, the probability of failure should not inhibit the US government from pursuing a more proactive role in resolving the conflict. The United States is the “sole pole” in a unipolar international system; regarding the world's thorniest disputes, it either leads or bears the brunt of its own passivity. Leadership requires more than devising policies that are guaranteed to work; it also involves taking risks on bold initiatives that may fail, but whose unlikely success would produce greater stability in global affairs. This article examines the admittedly slim prospects for settling the Kashmir dispute and the role Washington might play in such a process. It argues that only one conflict-resolution option seems even remotely viable: a phased conversion of the existing Kashmiri Line of Control into an internationally recognized Indo-Pakistani border.     

Designing a dispute resolution system for water policy and management

Conclusions The Montana state water planning process represents one example of how a government agency with decision-making responsibilities can design and facilitate a dispute resolution system. Dispute resolution systems can increase the participation of all affected interests in developing and implementing public policy. This, in turn, should increase their ownership in the final decision and in seeing that it is implemented. A dispute resolution system may not decrease the volume of conflicts, per se, but it should reduce the high costs of conflict and realize the benefits of conflict more efficiently.The use of dispute resolution systems to address complex, multi-party public policy issues also provides other benefits, including the consideration of diverse perspectives and interests; the cooperative and systematic analysis of technical and scientific information; the formation of more pragmatic, equitable, and mutually acceptable goals and alternatives; and the improvement of relationships among diverse, often competing interests, government agencies, and policymakers. Matthew McKinney is a policy analyst and facilitator with the State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1520 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Mont. 59620.An earlier version of this article was presented at a conference titled Innovation in Western Water Law and Management, held at the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 5–7 June, 1991.     

Employment dispute resolution systems: Experience grows but some questions persist

Brown & Root, a large private construction firm, has designed and implemented a dispute resolution system (DRS) that emphasizes early, informal handling of disputes. This article traces the development, implementation, and accomplishments of the system thus far: The author also describes the most controversial aspect of the system — a pre-dispute agreement to mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment. John W. Zinsser is cofounder and managing partner of Pacifica Human Communications, a private intercultural and conflict communications consulting firm based at 269 Klotter Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219.     

Plaintiffs by proxy: A firm-level approach to WTO dispute resolution

Lobbying by multinational business firms drives the agenda of international trade politics. We match Fortune Global 500 firms to WTO disputes in which they have a stake and to their political activities using public disclosure data. The quantitative evidence reveals traces of a principal-agent relationship between major MNCs and the US Trade Representative (USTR). Firms lobby and make political contributions to induce the USTR to lodge a WTO dispute, and once a dispute begins, firms increase their political activity in order to keep USTR on track. Lobbying is overwhelmingly patriotic—the side opposing the US position is barely represented—and we see little evidence of MNCs lobbying against domestic protectionism. When the United States is targeted in a dispute, lobbying by defendant-side firms substantially delays settlement, as the affected firms pressure the government to reject concessions. Lobbying on the complainant side does not delay dispute resolution, as complainant-side firms have mixed incentives, to resolve disputes quickly as well as to hold out for better terms.     

New models of negotiation,dispute resolution,and joint problem solving

The revolutionary changes sweeping the workplace, union-management relationships, and the world economy have contributed to a sharply redefined role for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), the primary provider of mediation services to labor and management in the United States. In this article's three main sections, the authors trace the history and provide background information about FMCS; consider the changing role of mediation, driven by societal forces of change from the late 1970s to the present; and speculate on the agency's future and the expected expansion in the use of mediation. John Calhoun Wells has served as Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service since November, 1993, when he was appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton.Wilma B. Liebman is Deputy Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.