When ADR becomes the law: A review of federal practice

Conclusion With the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the stage was set for innovation and change in federal agencies. Now, part way into the five-year life of the Act, a new administration has the potential to encourage even wider use of ADR at the federal level, providing still more examples from which to develop a clearer sense of best practice. Additional funds, both for ACUS and individual agencies, are vital to providing the level of experimentation, innovation, and documentation needed to ensure success.MIT ProfessorLawrence E. Susskind is director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, 512 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.Eileen F. Babbitt is associate director of the Public Disputes Program.Phyllis N. Segal is a practicing mediator with Endispute, Incorporated.The authors would like to acknowledge the federal dispute resolution specialists who contributed greatly to our work by providing interviews and materials for this article: Cathy Costantino of FDIC; David Batson of EPA; John Settle and Ron Walczak of HHS; David Drabkin of DLA; Jim Jones of DOL; Sheldon Guttman of FCC; Charles Pou of ACUS; Jeff Domber of GSA; and Diane Liff of DOT.     

Of form and format

At a conference of Russian media lawyers and programme producersin Moscow this June, considerable attention was devoted to thelegal status of television and radio programme formats. Partof the cause of this attention was the apparent ambivalenceof the law: if you want to adapt a format that has been developedby someone else, the developer will assert its ownership ofthe format right and threaten     

Beyond 'Do No Harm': The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research

This paper highlights some of the central ethical challengesinvolved in undertaking social science research with refugeesin conflict and crisis situations. It focuses on two main setsof challenges: first, the difficulties of constructing an ethicalconsent process and obtaining genuinely informed consent; andsecond, taking fully into account and responding to refugeeparticipants' capacities for autonomy. The authors also discussthe challenges involved in applying the central normative principlesgoverning ethics review processes—the principles of beneficence,integrity, respect for persons, autonomy and justice—tothe context of refugee research. It is argued that researchersshould seek ways to move beyond harm minimization as a standardfor ethical research and recognize an obligation to design andconduct research projects that aim to bring about reciprocalbenefits for refugee participants and/or communities. Some ofthe methodological issues raised by this analysis are discussedin the conclusion.