Abstract
Tribunals resolve millions of disputes each year, using final binding decision-making, and dispute resolution processes such as mediation . This chapter explores practical ways in which tribunals can be responsive to participants in the process. This includes being responsive to the materials presented by participants. Strategies are canvassed, such as appropriately using discretion; weighing and balancing information ; encouraging agreement ; and empowering participants without prejudicing others. Process design is discussed as an important aspect of responsiveness, as well as the effects of good communication, exploring participant interests, and clarifying facts and the law. Providing opportunities for participants to resolve their dispute by agreement and the factors to consider in dispute resolution processes are outlined. Case studies are provided that illustrate real world examples. The authors argue a tribunal can generate a robust process, which is not only fair and delivers timely outcomes but also satisfies participants’ needs by paying attention to the factors discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agius v State of South Australia (No. 4) (2017) FCA 361
Alexander N (2011) The Mediation Meta-Model—the realities of mediation practice. Altern Dispute Resolut Bull 12(6):126–131
Berman-Robinson C, Shurven H (2017) Working with strong negative emotions in dispute resolution processes: boiling blood and frozen fear. Altern Dispute Resolut Law Bull 4:59
Calloway D (2010) Using mindfulness practice to work with emotions. Nevada Law J 10:338–364
Douglas K, Coburn C (2014) Attitude and response to emotion in dispute resolution: the experience of mediators. Flinders Law J 16:111–144
Fisher R, Shapiro D (2005) Beyond reason: using emotions as you negotiate. Viking Penguin, USA
Genn H, Thomas C (2013) Tribunal decision-making: an empirical study. Nuffield Foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/tribunal-decision-making. Accessed 1 Sept 2017
Mnookin RM, Susskind LE (eds) (1999) Negotiating on behalf of others. Sage Publications, California
Moore C (2003) The mediation process: practical strategies for resolving conflict. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Nisbet T, Syme GJ (2017) No way to build a highway: law, social justice research and the Beeliar Wetlands. Environ Plann Law J 34:162–175
Randolph P (2016) The psychology of conflict: mediating in a diverse world. Bloomsbury, Place
Re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd. (1993) 1 All ER 630
Sander F, Rozdeiczer L (2006) Matching cases and dispute resolution procedures: detailed analysis leading to a mediation-centered approach. Harvard Negot Law Rev 11:1–41
Sebenius J (2017) BATNAs in negotiation: common errors and three kinds of “no”. Negot J 33(2):89–99
Shurven H, Berman-Robinson C (2016) ADR process design: considerations for ADR practitioners and party advisors. Australas Dispute Resolut J 27:140–149
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shurven, H., Berman-Robinson, C. (2018). The Responsive Tribunal: Robust Processes; Fair and Timely Outcomes. In: Sourdin, T., Zariski, A. (eds) The Responsive Judge. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 67. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1022-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1023-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)