There are many types of conflict for example: competitive and disruptive. In competitive conflicts, there can be a victory for one party only at the cost of the opponent’s total loss. On the other hand, in disruptive conflicts, parties are intent upon reducing, defeating, harming or driving the opponent . Since not all conflicts are the same,

In certain cases the traditional court is still the best method for resolving disputes.

The federal government has promoted commercial arbitration since as early as 1887, when it passed the Interstate Commerce Act. The Act set up a mechanism for the voluntary submission of labor disputes to arbitration by the Railroads and their employees. Then, in 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs the arbitration of contractual disputes involving commerce. More recently, the federal judiciary has found employment disputes, civil rights violations, securities fraud, RICO and anti-trust claims to present arbitrable issues.

In some cases, judges will order mediation before they will hear a case in court in order to avoid court congestion. This situation often occurs in less formal cases that can be solved easily without the presence of a formal judge and a formal trial. Mediation is on the rise because more often than not, parties are able to recognize the problem and solve it while communication is still possible, before the problem becomes dramatic. For example, in most divorce cases, parties getting divorced don’t wait until all communication has broken down and any form of agreement has become impossible. These people will often start searching for help earlier to avoid major complications such as going to court.

Arbitrators are often experts in a particular industry or specific area of the law. Therefore in cases where the decision-maker needs to be knowledgeable about the subject the parties can choose a particular arbitrator. These arbitrators or panel (arbitration panel) are impartial and usually chosen by the parties together. This is another difference between arbitration and the court. In arbitration the parties choose the arbitrator and in the court they are attributed a judged. To make arbitration fair, the two parties should respect the following areas; the place of arbitration so that it is fair for both parties, the Language used to make sure every one understands the terms used, the procedures or rules of law applied, the nationality and the legal representation. These areas of respect will make arbitration more fair and equal to both parties and will eliminate more sources of conflict.

Arbitration is appropriate when, as outlined in the site: http://www.opm.gov/er/adrguide/intro.asp:

Mediation is more and more common. A major difference between mediation and the court is that in most cases mediation fees are shared between the parties. Although there was an increase in average costs for third-party resolution services to $6,800 in 2002 from $4,300 in 2001, the costs are still much lower than for a hearing. In the court both parties must pay for their own layer, which is a lot more expensive for both parties. For example, the average cost of civil lawsuits in Ontario is now about $40,000 . In most cases using mediation, an agreement will be reached after discussion between the parties and the help of the mediator. If this is not the case parties can choose arbitration which is a second alternative dispute resolution.

Mediation is based on an integrative model designed to help the discussions and also designed to keep every step in proper sequence. This model is composed of three foci; Awareness/empowerment, Understanding/recognition and Agreement/reconciliation. These three foci make discussion more effective and organized. The first focus: Awareness/empowerment is described in the book when push comes to shove by Karl A. Slaikeu as:

This type of dispute resolution has been used to resolve labor/management and commercial disputes. As mentioned in the site: http://www.gama.com/HTML/history.html:

Some topics in this essay:
Arbitration Act, Justice Canada, Karl Slaikeu, Rules Arbitration, , York Convention, Act Act, Understanding/recognition Agreement/reconciliation, court system, dispute resolution, alternative dispute, alternative dispute resolution, mediation process, binding arbitration, arbitration court, parties choose, mediation court, opposed court, resolving disputes, Court Arbitration, book push comes, dispute resolution adr, push comes shove, dispute resolution court,