Lecture #4: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Stellan Vinthagen

Suggested Reading: Do No Harm, Mary B. Anderson
- This is essential reading for anyone engaged in conflict resolution
- This book discusses how aid can and does exacerbate/ drive conflict.

Galtung’s Conflict Pyramid
- Before we examine ADR, it is important to revisit Galtung’s Conflict Pyramid.
- Johan created the Conflict Pyramid to explain the minimum dimensions of all conflicts.
- Each corner of the pyramid represents a different dimension of conflict.
o “A”: attitudes
o “B”: behaviors
o “C”: contradictions
- If someone engaged in dispute resolution focuses on the “A” corner, he or she has adopted a process oriented approach.
- If someone engaged in dispute resolution focuses on the “B” corner, he or she has adopted a security oriented approach.
- If someone engaged in dispute resolution focuses on the “C” corner, he or she has adopted an issue oriented approach.
- In all conflict resolution, you must address all three corners of the pyramid even if you focus on one corner.

Traditional Dispute Resolution (TDR)
- We also need to revisit TDR.
- Traditional Dispute Resolution has been adopted by countries, the UN, NATO, and multi-lateral armies.
- TDR is security oriented and focuses on the “B” or behaviors corner of Galtung’s pyramid.
- TDR is typically combined with diplomatic measures and actors engaged in TDR often make threats through diplomatic channels.
- It is top-down and often entails the use of power/ force.
- TDR virtually ignores the “A” or attitudes corner and does little to address the “C” or contradictions corner of Galtung’s pyramid.
- TDR is a form of conflict management.
- Criticisms of TDR have developed into ADR.

Introduction to ADR
- ADR is an approach to conflict resolution that has become popular over the last 20-30 years.
- It is intended as an alternative to Traditional Dispute Resolution (TDR).
- ADR focuses on the “A” or attitudes and the “C” or contradictions corners of the Conflict Pyramid.
- ADR was developed throughout the 20th century but took off in the US in the 1960s and 1970s.
o Background: ADR was developed as an alternative method to resolve conflicts that were typically resolved through costly and time-consuming lawsuits.
o ADR took the form of community dispute centers intended to resolve conflicts and mediate costs.
o This form of conflict resolution spread globally and has been codified in ADR.

The Six Characteristics of ADR
1. Professional conflict resolution by impartial and/or neutral “third parties.”
2. Focus on facilitation (without coercive means or threats).
3. Builds on voluntary participation.
4. Conflict parties are said to “own” their own conflict.
5. Uses training, education, process work to build up skills and awareness to deal with conflicts.
6. Believes in “win-win” solutions as an ideal form of conflict resolution.
Two Examples of ADR
- “The Elders”
o This group was founded/funded by Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel.
o “The Elders” recruits retired, experienced mediators such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu to mediate conflicts globally.
- The Harvard Negotiation Project
o This project attempts to resolve conflicts through “principled negotiations.”
o This project embraces a rational approach to conflict resolution.

5 Possible Outcomes of Conflict
1. Total victory for party #1.
2. Total victory for party #2.
3. Mutual destruction/ stalemate.
4. Compromise.
5. “Win-win.” (This is viewed as the best outcome by those who embrace ADR.)

4 Different Versions of ADR
1. Educational (emphasis on knowledge as a means of empowerment)
2. Rational (Harvard Negotiation Project)
3. Therapeutic (“conflict doctors”/ individual and group emotional therapy)
4. Spiritual (appeals to higher power/ see Parry, Warriors of the Heart)

Non-Violent Communication, Marshall Rosenberg
- “Giraffe” language is a form of compassionate communication.
- Normally, when people are engaged in a conflict they speak “wolf” language which is judgmental, aggressive, and, ultimately, counter-productive.
- Rosenberg trains people on how to speak “giraffe.”
- “Giraffe” language has four rules:
1. State what you observe. (Observations must be factual and indisputable.)
2. State what you feel. (Only state “I” messages about yourself./ Stated feelings should provide the reasoning behind the conflict and should be honest and nonjudgmental.)
3. State what you value/need. (Stated needs should explain your feelings.)
4. State what you suggest/ request. (This should serve as a conclusion for your observation, feelings, and needs and should not be an order or a threat.)
- Professor Vinthagen’s views on “Giraffe” language: It is helpful but not useful in resolving all conflicts. In order for compassionate communication to work, both parties have to care about each other. This is just one tool for conflict resolution.
- Professor Vinthagen’s example of “Giraffe” language. This example concerns his teenage daughter’s messy room.
o Observation: His daughter’s clean clothes are on the floor.
o Feeling: This makes Professor Vinthagen frustrated.
o Need: Professor Vinthagen need’s his daughter to take care of her resources/ possessions.
o Request: Professor Vinthagen requests that his daughter put her clean clothes in a drawer.
- Advanced course: Only hear “giraffe” language.

Criticisms of ADR
- This criticisms are based on the writings of P. Caplan, L. Nader, and C. Harrington.
1. Reflects western cultural values such as individualism and rationality.
2. Utopian belief in “The Method”
3. Privatization of conflicts
4. Provides indirect support for powerful groups
5. Mechanism of social control (see Michel Foucault)
6. Adapts a Rational Choice and Economic Man view
7. Informal/ undermines law/justice
8. Alternative Dispute Resolution = Complimentary Dispute Resolution (ADR doesn’t question / criticize the system or power asymmetries. It takes traditional power structures as given.)

3 Ways to View ADR
1. ADR is the only way to resolve conflicts.
2. ADR is as an inherently flawed/ problematic approach to conflict resolution.
3. ADR is a tool that can be employed as part of a tool box of different approaches to conflict resolution. (This is the view recommended by Professor Vinthagen.)