Control Over Dispute-System Design and Mandatory Commercial Arbitration

This article argues that mandatory arbitration is not itself the problem. The problem is instead that in some instances, one party to the dispute has exclusive control of the design of the dispute-resolution system. Consequently, research on mandatory arbitration should concentrate on who is structuring it, how they structure it, why this is so and how these choices affect dispute outcomes

Designing Justice: Legal Institutions and Other Systems for Managing Conflict

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Why Suppose - Let\u27s Find Out: A Public Policy Research Program on Dispute Resolution

In this commentary, I suggest that we can get a broader picture of the research agenda to address these policy issues by refining our notions of self-determination. In addition to self-determination over process and outcome in the individual case, we need to start examining who has control over design of the dispute system as a whole. First, this commentary addresses the difference between self-determination at the case level and self-determination in dispute system design and how these two separate dimensions of self-determination can help us distinguish among different uses of mediation and arbitration. Second, using this framework, I attempt to review some of the field research on mediation and relate it to Professor Hensler\u27s essay. This includes work in labor relations that finds disputants rate mediation more highly than arbitration in terms of judgments of procedural justice and work in employment mediation showing that both facilitative and transformative models can provide disputants with a useful alternative to traditional administrative adjudication. Finally, this commentary proposes that the judiciary build data collection into its information systems to facilitate more field research on how different ADR dispute system designs function in a court setting

When We Hold No Truths to Be Self-Evident: Truth, Belief, Trust, and the Decline in Trials

This article will explore the relationship between the vanishing trial and the changing ways in which we think about truth. First, it briefly overviews how we think about knowing what is true: epistemology and this history of philosophy. Second, it looks to the philosophy of science and history of social science for new theories and methods about how we ascertain and construct meaning and what we believe to be real and true. Third, it examines our changing relation to information in the face of the information explosion : information is the evidence upon which we reach a conclusion about what is true. Fourth, it relates these changes to the philosophy of law and theories of the jury and adversary system. Fifth, it examines what social science has taught us about truth, belief, trust, justice, and control over information. Finally, it addresses how these changes may explain why litigants are using mediation, arbitration, and other forms of appropriate dispute resolution in lieu of the adversarial civil trial

Collaborative Governance: Emerging Practices and the Incomplete Legal Framework for Public and Stakeholder Voice

This article describes the broad range of processes through which citizens and stakeholders collaborate to make, implement, and enforce public policy. First, it briefly reviews collaborative and new governance. Second, it describes deliberative democracy; collaborative public or network management; and appropriate dispute resolution in the policy process. These three separate fields are part of a single phenomenon, namely the changing nature of citizen and stakeholder voice in governance. Third, it describes how these new forms of participation operate across the policy continuum. Fourth, it briefly reviews existing legal infrastructure for collaborative governance primarily from the perspective of federal administrative law. I conclude that we need to revise our legal infrastructure to facilitate collaboration in a way that will strengthen our democracy

Reflections on Designing Governance to Produce the Rule of Law

This article first briefly reviews definitions of the rule of law. Second, it briefly reviews current understandings and approaches to governance. Third, it introduces the concept of dispute systems design, its application to collaborative governance across the policy continuum, and failures in the rule of law as seen through this frame. Finally, it provides examples of rule of law initiatives organized across the policy process in governance

Error propagation in a fuzzy logic spatial multi-criteria evaluation

Ponencias, comunicaciones y pósters presentados en el 17th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science "Connecting a Digital Europe through Location and Place", celebrado en la Universitat Jaume I del 3 al 6 de junio de 2014.Quantifying errors in results of spatial multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) techniques is essential to improve the credibility of MCE in planning and decision-making. We present an error propagation procedure using Monte Carlo simulation for fuzzy logic MCE applied in a case study of petroleum exploration which covers northern South America. The fuzzy logic MCE combines data sets to evaluate the favourability of petroleum exploration in a geographic region. Each input data set has associated error models and estimated uncertainty. Two sources of error are investigated: boundary and fuzzy membership. 2000iterations of the model were run. The resulting mean of the 2000 samples and a series of confidence interval maps were analysed. It is concluded that the combination of the MCE analysis and error propagation modelling will support decisions for petroleum exploration