|
Reseña:
|
Reseña:... I explore the related question... of what alternative dispute resolution theorists need from a theory of justice. For the practice of alternative dispute resolution to provide lessons for political theories of deliberative democracy, the practice needs to be contexualized in a normative vision of justice that addresses the relationship between procedure and justice ideals. In other words, it cannot merely describe what happens in experimental consensus-building processes or other alternative dispute resolution settings, but must articulate what should ideally be occurring...I begin by briefly reviewing the relationship between justice and the adversary system on which our traditional legal system is based, in light of the two types of critiques that have given impetus to the movement in favor of alternative dispute resolution procedures. I then make explicit three distinct normative conceptions that need to be articulated more fully, if consensus-building processes are to provide a viable alternative to adversary proceedings. Finally, I look at how some of the theories of deliberative democracy discussed by Menkel-Meadow can inform alternative dispute resolution theory in articulating these normative conceptions, as well as identifying some of the specific points at which theory needs to learn from practice. |
