An Uncertain Destination: On the Development of Conflict Management Systems in U.S. Corporations

[Excerpt] Our survey and field research have led us to some tentative conclusions that do not conform to the conventional wisdom of our field. From its inception, ADR has been controversial. On the one hand, ADR has been embraced by a coterie of champions who have always believed that its advantages over litigation were so obvious and compelling it would only be a matter of time before ADR was adopted universally. These champions have also been missionaries, proselytizing their faith in all quarters and making numerous converts. Like all true believers, ADR champions cannot understand why others have not yet gotten the faith. On the other hand, there has always been a group of ADR opponents who believe ADR undercuts our system of justice and must be resisted. ADR champions believe in the inevitability of ADR, while ADR opponents believe the movement to ADR can be stopped and even reversed. On balance, we believe in ADR\u27s merits and share many of its champions\u27 convictions. Our research — which is based on the analytical model we present in this paper — suggests, however, that there is nothing inevitable about the ultimate triumph of ADR

ADR and Litigation Involving Social Problems

This Article addresses remarks of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Michael Cardozo, regarding the use of ADR in legal disputes involving municipal government. It also highlights the special responsibilities of class counsel in the ADR context in class action litigation on behalf of vulnerable families and individuals. Specifically, the Article addresses ADR resolutions in Sheppard v. Phoenix, No. 91 Civ. 4148(RPP), 1998 WL 397846 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 1998), Marisol v. Giuliani, 185 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), and McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216 (1994). The Article concludes with a discussion of ADR in the context of litigation on behalf of homeless New Yorkers. ADR can simultaneously prevent harm to vulnerable populations and keep parties out of court when the government falls out of compliance with legal rights and protections. ADR should not be used to wipe away fundamental legal rights protecting homeless families

What Difference Does ADR Make? Comparison of ADR and Trial Outcomes in Small Claims Court

This study compares the experience of small claims litigants who use alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) to those who proceeded to trial without ADR. ADR had significant immediate and long-term benefits, including improved party attitudes toward and relationship with each other, greater sense of empowerment and voice, increases in parties taking responsibility for the dispute, and increases in party satisfaction with the judiciary. Cases that settled in ADR also were less likely to return to court for an enforcement action within the next year

Escaping the Shadow of Malpractice Law

Abinovich-Einy addresses several constituencies operating at the meeting point of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), communication theory, healthcare policy, and medical-malpractice doctrine. From an ADR perspective, the need for, and barriers to, addressing non-litigable disputes, for which the alternative route is the only one, is explored. It is shown that ADR mechanisms may not take root when introduced into an environment that is resistant to collaborative and open discourse without additional incentives and measures being adopted

Understanding ADR

[Excerpt] This essay provides a concrete understanding of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) by analyzing Owen Fiss’ article Against Settlement. Additionally, this essay provides insight regarding the role that the Human Resources (HR) function plays in the context of the dispute resolution process. Part I begins by introducing the concept of ADR. Part II provides an overview of Fiss’ overarching argument presented in Against Settlement. Part III expands on Part II by discussing the three components that make up Fiss’ argument. Part IV concludes by addressing the importance of understanding conflict management and dispute resolution from the perspective of HR professionals

Understanding the ADR premium under market segmentation.

Capital controls can induce large and persistent deviations from the Law of One Price for cross-listed stocks in international capital markets. A considerable literature has explored firm-specific factors which influence ADR pricing when LOP is violated. In this paper, we examine the interlinkages between Indian ADR premiums and macroeconomic time-series. We construct an ADR premium index, whereby diversification across firms diminishes idiosyncratic fluctuations associated with each security. We find that the S P 500 index and the domestic Nifty index influence the ADR Premium Index. Positive shocks to the ADR premium index precede higher purchases by foreign investors on the domestic market, and precede positive returns on the domestic index.Capital market integration, Depository receipts

Ringel duality and Auslander-Dlab-Ringel algebras

We introduce a new class of quasi-hereditary algebras, containing in particular the Auslander-Dlab-Ringel (ADR) algebras. We show that this new class of algebras is preserved under Ringel duality, which determines in particular explicitly the Ringel dual of any ADR algebra. As a special case of our theory, it follows that, under very restrictive conditions, an ADR algebra is Ringel dual to another one. The latter provides an alternative proof for a recent result of Conde and Erdmann, and places it in a more general setting

Architectural design rewriting as an architecture description language

Architectural Design Rewriting (ADR) is a declarative rule-based approach for the design of dynamic software architectures. The key features that make ADR a suitable and expressive framework are the algebraic presentation of graph-based structures and the use of conditional rewrite rules. These features enable the modelling of, e.g. hierarchical design, inductively defined reconfigurations and ordinary computation. Here, we promote ADR as an Architectural Description Language

Scaling Behavior of Angular Dependent Resistivity in CeCoIn5_5: Possible Evidence for d-Wave Density Waves

In-plane angular dependent resistivity ADR was measured in the non-Fermi liquid regime of CeCoIn$_5$ single crystals at temperatures $T \le 20$ K and in magnetic fields $H$ up to 14 T. Two scaling behaviors were identified in low field region where resistivity shows T-linear dependence, separated by a critical angle $\theta_{c}$ which is determined by the anisotropy of CeCoIn$_5$; i.e., ADR depends only on the perpendicular (parallel) field component below (above) $\theta_c$. These scaling behaviors and other salient features of ADR are consistent with d-wave density waves

On-orbit servicing commercial opportunities with security implications

The On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) working group discussed legal and political implications of developing a commercial OOS industry. The group considered the benefits that OOS and Active Debris Removal (ADR) can offer the satellite industry, as well as potential disadvantages for international relations between space faring nations. To gain an accurate perspective of stakeholders involved in such a process, the OOS working group held a mock hearing for OOS licensing, with members of the working group assigned to represent stakeholders. Working group members presented their cases at a simulated domestic regulatory panel, constructed of members representing various government ministers, to fully explore stakeholder views. The mock hearings explored the challenges faced by OOS and ADR entrepreneurs as well as the benefit of regulation. The groups highlighted recommendations to ensure the practicality of OOS and determine how best to encourage licensing and regulation of such activities, as summarised below. 1. The United Nations (UN) should provide regulatory guidelines for OOS and ADR. 2. Government agencies should license OOS. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken responsibility for licensing commercial space transportation in the United States and this should be extended to OOS/ADR missions to enable short-term advancement prior to further UN regulation. 3. Government should support OOS and ADR development to ensure continued demand. This includes leading by example on government satellites and potential launch levies to enable on-going ADR funding. 4. All stakeholders should prevent weaponisation of space through transparency of operations. 5. Nations should initiate international cooperation on ADR. OOS and ADR will ensure sustainable use of satellites, particularly in LEO and GEO, for the coming decades. It is through transparency, economic stimulation and close monitoring that such endeavours will be successful