ABSTRACT
The use of dispute resolution processes that are alternatives to litigation and referred to here as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes has grown exponentially in many jurisdictions In many parts of the world, the need to improve access to justice for the disadvantaged is the impetus for this growth. ADR processes viewed as less costly, less complicated and less time consuming were promoted as better alternatives to judicial determination. Although traditional forms of dispute resolution have existed in many jurisdictions and cultures, forms of ADR promoted on the back of the access to justice movement were those developed in the West and transported to other nations. These processes have been institutionalised and now form an integral part of most civil justice systems. The common source of ADR terminology and trainings across jurisdictions has meant that similarities exist. A closer look, however, would reveal significant differences in definitions of ADR terms, standards of ADR practice and conceptions of ADR practitioner responsibilities, shaped by particular cultures including social and professional culture. The implication is that developing a set of global standards for ADR would require careful consideration.
