When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Abstract
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Abstract
I. THE PuRPoSES OF ADR: EmCIENCY, QUALITY, \nOR jUSTICE VALUES • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 1871 II. WHO SHOULD THE ACTORS BE IN ADR? • . • . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . • • . . . 1876 \nIII. WHAT PROCESSES CoNSTITUTE ADR? . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885 \nIV. To WHAT USES SHOULD ADR BE PuT? • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 1897 \nV. ETHICS AND STANDARDS IN THE USB OF ADR: FOR WHAT PuRPoSES? . • . • • . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • 1922 \nVII. RESoLVING THE DISPUTES AMONG DISPUTE PROFESSIONALS: OF POUCY CHOICES AND PROCESS . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • 1930 ~ the processes comprising alternative, or as we now say, "appropriate" dispute resolution mature and enter new phases of use, new issues \nhave emerged to demonstrate that professionals engaged in providing dis· \npute resolution services have disputes and conflicts among themselves. \nThis Article reviews some of those conflicts and issues and suggests some \nresolutions for these disputes between dispute resolvers.
OpenAlex reports 37 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
I. THE PuRPoSES OF ADR: EmCIENCY, QUALITY, \nOR jUSTICE VALUES • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 1871 II. WHO SHOULD THE ACTORS BE IN ADR? • . • . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . • • . . . 1876 \nIII. WHAT PROCESSES CoNSTITUTE ADR? . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885 \nIV. To WHAT USES SHOULD ADR BE PuT? • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 1897 \nV. ETHICS AND STANDARDS IN THE USB OF ADR: FOR WHAT PuRPoSES? . • . • • . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • 1922 \nVII. RESoLVING THE DISPUTES AMONG DISPUTE PROFESSIONALS: OF POUCY CHOICES AND PROCESS . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • 1930 ~ the processes comprising alternative, or as we now say, "appropriate" dispute resolution mature and enter new phases of use, new issues \nhave emerged to demonstrate that professionals engaged in providing dis· \npute resolution services have disputes and conflicts among themselves. \nThis Article reviews some of those conflicts and issues and suggests some \nresolutions for these disputes between dispute resolvers.
Key concepts: Dispute resolution, Political science, Dispute mechanism, Law, Psychology, Alternative dispute resolution, Criminology