ABSTRACT
While much of Eastern Europe rediscovered the ‘rule of law’ in 1989, in the same year a less newsworthy, but in its own way still extraordinary, event took place on Hawaii for a nation well experienced in the rule of law. The American Bar Association, representative of some 800,000 US lawyers in the world’s most ‘sue-conscious’ society, devoted its annual convention there to the theme of ‘Resolving Disputes in Pacific Ways’. The choice of theme, leaving aside its geographical aspirations, reflected the remarkable success within some two decades of the concept of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, a concept that has now established its acronym, ADR, as a term of art. ‘ADR’ – alternatives to litigation as a means of dispute resolution – was being explored not only in the substantive debates amongst the lawyers attending the convention, but also in reports of new dispute resolution legislation, mechanisms, projects and services talcing place within many of the states (Hawaii itself a very active participant in this) – not to mention the posters, badges, T-shirts and fortune cookies promoting the concept.
ADR has quietly slipped into the mainstream of legal practice. For some, the mention of ADR signals debate over whether some means for dealing with conflict is faster or better than litigation, while for others, ADR represents a reminder of traditional notions of legal negotiation and settlement. Both views miss the point. Over the past two decades ADR has become a cornucopia of processes, procedures and resources for responding to disputes, all of which supplement rather than supplant traditional approaches to conflict. Contrary to its label, ADR is not an alternative or substitute at all; it adds useful tools to an attorney’s existing professional tool box.
(Dispute Resolution First Aid Kit for Attorneys, ABA General Practice Section, 1988, Introduction)