Apologies in the Healthcare System: From Clinical Medicine to Public Health

Alberstein and Davidovitch explore the role of apologies in healthcare systems from a broader perspective. The significance of apology in terms of social solidarity is addressed and the ways in which each apology situation entails a clash between cultural identities are demonstrated. The debate on apology is explored by presenting a public health perspective of apologies following collective traumatic events such as the application of sterilization laws or flawed human experimentations in various settings

ADR and Transitional Justice as Reconstructing the Rule of Law

This paper addresses the role of ADR in reconstructing the rule of law following the critique this idea received during the 20th century, and exemplifies this role through reference to another alternative movement in law-The Transitional Justice movement. In contrast to efforts to reconcile the notion of the rule of law with ADR, or to demarcate the proper interaction between these social institutions in achieving justice, this paper argues for a deeper connection between the two notions: After briefly analyzing the intricate meanings of the rule of law notion through history and its relation to ADR, the paper continues to suggest that the critique of this notion has inspired the development of both domestic ADR and international Transitional Justice, and that the resemblance between these movements can be explained by this inspiratio

Forms of Mediation and Law: Cultures of Dispute Resolution

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

Conflict Resolution Procedures Within the Courtroom: Between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Traditions

Modern courts have evolved around two central legal traditions—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. The two traditions have historically reflected different approaches towards consent and authority or towards conflict resolution and strict application of the law. Yet with the blurring of boundaries between the two legal traditions, and alongside various reforms in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems, new practices of judicial conflict resolution within the courtroom have developed. This Article will compare the two legal traditions and examine the assimilation of ideologies and procedures typical to conflict resolution processes into the work of judges, as they strive to end civil legal cases by ways other than traditional legal ruling (i.e., by settlement). This Article argues that the integration of inquisitorial-like judicial practices within an adversarial environment contributes to the evolution of proper conditions for rich judicial conflict resolution. This is as opposed to contexts in which inquisitorial systems internalize conflict-resolution procedures into the legal system, yet the shift in how judges perceive their role is less significant. Applying practices foreign to the courtroom—practices that focus on the broader interests of the parties—minimizes the original and clear separation that the founders of the alternative dispute resolution movement envisioned as they developed alternative conflict-resolution procedures intended to be completely separate from the legal world. The new sphere in which the adversarial judge practices, alongside rapid developments in dispute-resolution procedures, is a unique arena which enables dispute resolution under the auspices of authority. Consequently, and as litigants’ expectations of the legal process have changed accordingly, the center of gravity of the legal process has shifted from the evidentiary stage to the preliminary stages (such as pretrial and discovery). This process has inevitably led to changes in the roles of litigators, rules of procedures, relative burdens of proof, and the overall management of litigation. The development of this unique sphere bears great potential for the resolution of complicated legal conflicts and for the development of innovative hybrid models for law and mediation

From Transplant to Disintegration? A Comparative Study of the Judicial Role

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

Fitting the Forum to the Fuss While Seeking the Truth: Lessons from Judicial Reforms in Italy

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

Conflict Resolution Procedures Within the Courtroom: Between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Traditions

Modern courts have evolved around two central legal traditions—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. The two traditions have historically reflected different approaches towards consent and authority or towards conflict resolution and strict application of the law. Yet with the blurring of boundaries between the two legal traditions, and alongside various reforms in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems, new practices of judicial conflict resolution within the courtroom have developed. This Article will compare the two legal traditions and examine the assimilation of ideologies and procedures typical to conflict resolution processes into the work of judges, as they strive to end civil legal cases by ways other than traditional legal ruling (i.e., by settlement). This Article argues that the integration of inquisitorial-like judicial practices within an adversarial environment contributes to the evolution of proper conditions for rich judicial conflict resolution. This is as opposed to contexts in which inquisitorial systems internalize conflict-resolution procedures into the legal system, yet the shift in how judges perceive their role is less significant. Applying practices foreign to the courtroom—practices that focus on the broader interests of the parties—minimizes the original and clear separation that the founders of the alternative dispute resolution movement envisioned as they developed alternative conflict-resolution procedures intended to be completely separate from the legal world. The new sphere in which the adversarial judge practices, alongside rapid developments in dispute-resolution procedures, is a unique arena which enables dispute resolution under the auspices of authority. Consequently, and as litigants’ expectations of the legal process have changed accordingly, the center of gravity of the legal process has shifted from the evidentiary stage to the preliminary stages (such as pretrial and discovery). This process has inevitably led to changes in the roles of litigators, rules of procedures, relative burdens of proof, and the overall management of litigation. The development of this unique sphere bears great potential for the resolution of complicated legal conflicts and for the development of innovative hybrid models for law and mediation