Two persons have a dispute about an orange.
It is no longer possible to determine who is the rightful owner of the orange.

If both persons sue for ownership, the orange may become moldy before a decision is made. Consequently, none of them obtains the orange. That is what we consider a "Lose-Lose-Situation". Nobody won anything, aside from experience. In any case no one got what he wanted. In addition, extra costs arise.

A judge/arbitrator, both persons know, is asked for advice. He halves the orange and hands one half over to each person. This is a "Lose-Win-Situation" for both, because no one receives everything that was originally demanded.

However, a mediator finds out in a conversation, that one person needs the orange to make juice and the other needs the orange peel for cooking. Both persons get what they wanted and a "Win-Win-Situation" is created.

If this all happens in a structured process with rules, we call it Mediation.

The story shows: Disputes can be solved without going to court.

Dispute Resolution offers a faster, cheaper and for the (business) relationship much healthier way to resolve a conflict.

If the dispute cannot be settled amicably, you can - of course - still go to court but you could also consider out-of-court dispute settlement procedures such as mediation, arbitration or conciliation conducted by a neutral third party.

What kind of possibilities and limits are there in a Dispute Resolution process compared to a procedure where a court ultimately decides? Which are the characteristics of the various forms?

< previous page   ^ top    next page >