Introduction:

The concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) denotes the process in which disputes are
addressed and settled outside of the courtroom. In a more detailed language, ADR refers to the ways in
which disputes are resolved without litigation. These ways may involve negotiation, arbitration, or
mediation. The processes of ADR are generally more expeditious and less pricey. As a matter of fact,
ADR is used in disputes, which have the potential of leading to litigation. Such disputes may involve
labor disputes, personal injury accusations, and divorce actions.

Unlike traditional litigation, the procedures of ADR are generally collaborative, letting the parties realize
each other’s perspectives. ADR even lets the parties analyze and suggest creative solutions, which a
typical courtroom does not permit to impose legally.

Definition:

According to Punjab Dispute Resolution Act 2019,

Sec 2(b): “Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)” means a process in which parties’ resort to resolving a
dispute, other than through adjudication by courts, and includes, but is not limited to, mediation,
conciliation and evaluation”.

According to Cambridge Dictionary:

The Alternate Dispute Resolution is a set of actions that are used by organizations to try to solve
disagreements without using a court of law,for example arbitration and conciliation.

Concept and Nature of ADR:

The Alternative Dispute Resolution System is simple and free from procedural technicalities: The
methodology applied and techniques used in mechanism of ADR to settle the disputes between the
parties do not follow the ticklish procedure adopted by the Judicial Courts. The mechanism of ADR
system does not partake the course of judicial process. It is completely different and divorced from
judicial technicalities. The ADR process is very simple, cheap, easy, speedy and result oriented in
disposal of the cases. The ADR techniques are extra judicial in character.

Mechanism:

The mechanism of ADR System and its techniques are extra-judicial remedy to resolve disputes outside
the legal fora. These techniques can be used in all those cases, which are capable of being resolved,
under law, by mutual agreement between the parties. The scope of ADR is wider and can cover the
cases of civil nature, commercial, industrial and family disputes or any other cases of urgent nature. The
ADR works across the full range of business disputes: banking; contract performance and
interpretations, construction contracts, intellectual property rights, insurance coverage, conflicts in joint
ventures, partnership differences, personal injury; product liability; professional liability, real estate and
securities. The mechanism of ADR system may offer best solution in commercial disputes of an
international character. The scope of an ADR System is not intended to supplant existing means of
dispute resolution. It offers only alternative options to litigation. Every delegate stress for promotion of
Mechanism of ADR system using its various forms conciliation, negotiations, mediation instead of
initiating trials in the Court. The fast-emerging importance of ADR, its wider scope and commendable
objectives emphasized for

ADR vis a vis Jirga System: A jirga is a traditional assembly of leaders that supposed to make decisions
by consensus. Its primary purpose has been to prevent tribal war. Most jirgas are conducted in
Afghanistan but also among the Pashtun tribes in neighboring Pakistan, especially in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). In 2017, the Pakistani government passed The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act,
2017 of Pakistan aiming to integrate jirgas into the formal justice system. In a January 2019 petition
from National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), Supreme Court of Pakistan restrained jirgas
up to permissible limits of the law to the extent of acting as arbitration, mediation, negotiation or
reconciliation forums between parties involved in a civil dispute, amidst continued reports of
widespread flouting of constitutional norms and human rights

Origin: Jirga might be referring to a large assembly of men forming a very broad circle, initially intended
for laying siege around games or animals to be hunted for sport or for food. Probably, the Pashtun
elders were also sitting initially in a circular formation when debating and hearing a given dispute.

Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution:

Many insurance policies contain mandatory alternative dispute resolution clauses, depending on the
state. The two most common forms of alternative dispute resolution are mediation and arbitration,
though there are other types as well.

Mediation:

Mediation occurs when an independent third party steps in to try and find a way for the insured and the
insurer to agree on a mutually acceptable outcome. The mediator is not called upon to decide who is
right but rather to add structure to communication between the disputing parties, so that they can,
hopefully, eventually reach a resolution between themselves.

Arbitration:

Arbitration occurs when a neutral independent party called an arbitrator listens to arguments from both
sides, collects evidence, and then decides on the outcome of the dispute, similar to a court ruling.
Arbitration can either be non-binding or binding. The latter means the decision is final and enforceable,
while the former implies that the arbitrator’s ruling is advisory and only set in stone if both parties agree
to it.
Negotiation:

Negotiation occurs when there is direct contact between the parties to a dispute. In order to arrive at a
solution that is acceptable to both parties, it enables the parties to debate their views, interests, and
prospective solutions. The parties may choose to negotiate informally amongst themselves or with the
aid of lawyers or other representatives.

Collaborative Law:

In a collaborative law process, the parties and their separate attorneys agree to settle their differences
without going to court by negotiating and coming up with solutions. The emphasis is on collaboration
and coming up with original solutions that satisfy the requirements of all parties. In many ways,
collaborative law may be seen as negotiation as long as the parties seem to be in stronger correlation to
how resolution is to be met.

Mini-Trial

In a mini-trial, each party's representatives present their case to an impartial third party. That third party
is usually a senior executive or an impartial advisor, and this presentation is part of a structured
negotiating process. In order to assist the parties in reaching a settlement, the third party offers an
assessment or opinion on the likely course of the case. Though this may mirror a formal court
proceeding, it is done in a much more private setting with many fewer parties.