Ineffective Alternative Dispute Resolution

Hierarchies in Government Systems

Hierarchies are useful organizational entities that fully meet the needs of their customers. The most effective government systems are those that encourage unprotective behavior. These systems have also contributed to growth in service delivery and customer development because they give people a chance to learn from their mistakes and from those of others. This means that hierarchies have the capacity to maintain all of their efforts in their entirety, to draw on their past experience, and to correct previous mistakes in order to offer quality services. The different levels outlaid in these systems have specific policies that govern them and thus require special abilities and expertise in their deliverables. The different authority levels in hierarchies are networked together in a specific complexity that protects each other and therefore none of its members is vulnerable to any foreign attack from either partner competitive body or the outcome of their service to its customers. The clarity of the hierarchies in the government institutions provides total effectiveness in the law courts and makes them efficient in their mandate. This system of responsibility from the higher level down to the junior makes them be binding to each other and so is the delivery of work. The junior levels are an answer to the superior and this makes them be more effective promoting efficiency at their deliverables. In the case of any of its customers’ insufficiency, they are allowed to move to the superior levels to seek further engagement so as to reach their satisfaction. However, there is also a room of provision of any aid in the matter concerned by the customer for their service quality, that is independent of the system’s deliberation on the final result as the system relies on its competent staff. These are well-managed plans and systems of delivery with well-stipulated procedures and policies governing each close that is not found in the Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Alternative Dispute Resolution which lacks specific regulations and laid-down procedures fundamentally relies on the law courts’ program for its full mandate to its customers’ service. Besides, the human resource used in its service delivery is derived from the hierarchy’s system and relies on their experience from the latter. Because of the inefficiency and perpetrating of the Alternative Dispute Resolution by its personnel, it is fully advocated for the hierarchy system for the practitioners tend to influence the outcome decision of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and its quality.

Ineffectiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Several factors render the Alternative Dispute Resolution ineffective and undermine the quality of its response to its consumer needs. This is people’s livelihood that should be taken with every concern and the final resolution used for the growth of the individuals and community as a whole. Unlike the law courts where there is a total tested competence before taking part in any proceeding, the Alternative Dispute Resolution method lacks equal competence and compromises the possible result and quality of its proceeding (Chan, 2015, p. 43). This, therefore, makes it vulnerable for the complainant to suffer loss as it is possible of a biased from the arbitrator.

Lack of Established Hierarchy

There is a lack of established hierarchy in the ADR system where the complainant can get to the higher level for more justice (Garth, 2011, p. 18). The system of leading is quite limited to the parties involved posing a danger of change on the final outcome due to possible influence by the superior party. This, however, is a possible effect of vanity for the complainant. The involvement of the parties’ view and effect in the decision is critical in this system for both the involved parties and the arbitrators. The money power issue emerges in the case where the accused is more financially powerful. There is a possibility of the complainant being bought off their rights and therefore no justice and so it is possible to influence the final decision maker.

Influence of Practitioners

The practitioners in the ADR system have a full effect on the final decision and influence this following their full reliance on their expertise in the field. There is a possibility of the final verdict being reached without making any trial of the matter due to their previous decision and experience in a similar case. In the pretext of saving time for the entire process and the technical involved, they tend to bypass major procedures taking advantage of the lack of hierarchy and validating the outcome before trial. Similarly, the lawyers have a set mind of ideas and culture in their deliberation of duties which is a snag to extract this phenomenon from the way they handle ADR (Kanowitz, 2011, p. 239).

Public Involvement and Influence

The Arbitration Dispute Resolution system attracts public involvement and their views are taken into account (Bingham, 2009, p. 65). It, therefore, undermines the privacy of the involved parties and highly influences the balancing of the issue involved. This also poses danger to the involved third party as the arbitrator because in case the decision is wrongly deliberated or with biases then the person risks retaliation and possibly can be excluded from the entire system. The public interests take center effect especially in situations where public funds are involved. This will automatically manage the proceeds and the direction of the case making the arbitrator non-effect. The government issues taken through this process involving public interest are always altered in the interest of the public due to factors like political gain. Political figures in the government always are willing to please their subjects and so shall follow suit in the quest for their political achievements paving way for the public demand and influence. Business matters that need to be well-analyzed before deliberation are altered depending on the prevailing conditions in the individual field with a major focus on the profitability of the business (Drahozal, 2011, p. 12). It shall always take into account the finances involved and the profits to be made instead of the case at hand.

Lack of Organized Network and Procedure

The ADR system lacks a well-organized network and elaborate procedure that can counter any attack or retaliation as the arbitrators are outsourced and paneled for the matter at hand. In this context, the people involved in the decisions work with the fear of being attacked and have no full confidence in their working (Boyd, 2014, p. 15). At a moment when a harsh and even though a just decision is made, the third party works with the fear of the unknown and the person in question retaliating. This is a clear portrayal of unprotective measures and a program for its workers and the parties involved, making it a functional unit of the practitioners involved. The law courts hierarchy, on the other hand, provides full cover for its staff and all the parties involved and is independent of every other decision or evidence provided (La, 2015, p. 3). In case of retaliation whatsoever, clear measures of the possible actions are stipulated and made known to their staff giving full confidence to its staff.

Parties’ Influence and Choice

The parties involved in the ADR system influence the entire process and choose what is best suited for them. They may as well choose the decision that is non-committal depending on their final outcome and interests. This makes the arbitrator’s decision of less effect and importance and may as well be a no case to answer. In the case where the involved parties are related in any way whatsoever, the arbitrator is compelled to factor the relationship and their aftermath willingness concerning the whole process (Bingham, 2009, p. 189). At an instance where either of the parties is remorseful, then the case will be withdrawn, and the matter rendered void. The practitioner’s decision and views fully redefine the direction of the process in the ADR system and its mandate. However, the ADR system uses the law court human resource in its mandate to deliver (Hensler, 2013, p. 108). This tells it all of how the ADR system depends on the knowledge and much more the experience of its practitioners for its full delivery.

Importance of Improving the Law Courts System

The improvement of the law courts, on the other hand, is of great benefit to the entire justice system (Feeley, 2011, p. 28). The idea of time-consuming in the law courts is, however, being overcome gradually with the integration of speedy rulings in the law courts. In the case where there is a misunderstanding in the ADR between parties, they resolve to the law courts for further clear and effective resolution. The practitioner’s inability to make verdicts without their personal interests is the reason why matters are taken to the law courts. It is, therefore, with every effect to appreciate the hierarchies as opposed to the Arbitration Dispute Resolution, which is manipulated by the parties involved.

References

Bingham, 2009. The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. s.l.:Public administration review.

Bingham, 2009. Employment arbitration. s.l.:Hein.

Boyd, 2014. Dispute resolution in family law: Protecting choice. s.l.:Attorney Ministry.

Chan, 2015. Dispute resolution management for international construction projects in China. s.l.:Elsevier.

Drahozal, 2011. Party Autonomy and Interim Measures In International Commercial Arbitration.. s.l.:Governmet press.

Feeley, 2011. Judicial policy making and the modern state.. s.l.:Cambridge University Press..

Garth, 2011. Tilting the Justice System. s.l.:BG Garth .

Hensler, 2013. Our courts, ourselves. s.l.:Penn St. L.

Kanowitz, 2011. Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Public Interest. s.l.:Hastings LJ.

La, P., 2015. Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of financial economics, Volume 15, p. 3.