|
Reseña:
|
Reseña:As a purely semantic matter, the question of how to categorize binding arbitration or other processes has little interest for this author and likely for others. One can easily define ADR in such a way as to either include or exclude binding arbitration. If one defines ADR as anything other than litigation, surely binding arbitration qualifies. While the semantic question may be uninteresting, I suggest that it is useful to...While the semantic question may be uninteresting, I suggest that it is useful to ask the normative question of how we should categorize binding arbitration.' Again, there may be no clear right answer. Nevertheless, addressing the question of the appropriate categorization of binding arbitration provides a good means for rethinking the nature of binding arbitration, what we mean by ADR, and how the variety of dispute resolution techniques typically grouped together as ADR relate to litigation. Artificially grouping these disparate processes together under the ADR umbrella is beginning to prove problematic. While we may continue to use the phrase in some contexts, at minimum we should think more carefully about its implications.ask the normative question of how we should categorize binding arbitration.'7Again, there may be no clear right answer. Nevertheless, addressing the questionof the appropriate categorization of binding arbitration provides a good means forrethinking the nature of binding arbitration, what we mean by ADR, and how thevariety of dispute resolution techniques typically grouped together as ADR relate tolitigation. Artificially grouping these disparate processes together under the ADRumbrella is beginning to prove problematic. While we may continue to use thephrase in some contexts, at minimum we should think more carefully about itsimplications. |
