In the process of planning an ultimate cross-cultural Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for international disputants, there are various factors and variables that one ought to build onto for the process to be perfect. Deduced from the Policy Dialogue by Adler, there is no fixed or formal format that would be recommended for various situations since each and every one of them is exceptional in its own way. However, accepting that democracy is imperative for everyone becomes the first step towards a successive and effective ADR. That based on the fact that accepting democracy would be accommodating other people’s views and opinions bearing in mind that they have the capacity of making decisions especially those concerning their prosperity. Democracy was the pillar as well as the main reason why the Keystone Policy dialogue on chemical weapons disposal was successful recording three major endeavors as it was comprehended from the publications. Moreover, the process without a doubt indicated that there would be no tough situation to solve as long as a sincere dialogue exists between all the parties concerned takes place. Based on the fact that all the concerns would be met and taken into consideration, the success rates for such disputes are certainly higher.
In comparable manner, having an appropriate intermediary or facilitator in the process of ADR process for international disputants would be another factor or variables that contribute to an ultimate process or outcome. The whole process would be bound to fail in case that variable is not meet bearing in mind that they bring in the third opinion that is not biased or indulgent to either side. As a result, factual facts would be deliberated. In addition, most facilitators of ADRs are knowledgeable, experienced, and skillful in such processes. It is such credibility’s that would enable the negotiating team to progress from any stalemate in the process of dialogue or when either side fails to compromise on a certain stand for a common ground to be reached at. As revealed in the Eye of the Strom Leadership, communication, negotiation, and problem solving ought to take place, and evidently, such a process would not be successful without a mediator who as well must be experienced and skillful in the undertaking. Correspondingly, there are generic steps that were revealed as important in the process of creating and implementing a dialogue. For instance, issue focusing and convening, information exchange and discussion, and solution-seeking and consensus. Hardly will the exchange of information that would eventually result to a consensus in the process of ADR without a deliberator, a fact that tends to indicate how important a third party involvement in the process is in the ADR process.
Similarly, the designing an ideal cross-cultural ADR process for international disputants requires an obligation or a commitment to resolve a given dispute between the parties concerned. Without which, the whole process would be bear fruit since neither party would be willing to compromise for a common ground to be reached. As a result, all the disputants ought to face the other team in negotiations once they are ready and willing to resolve the dispute, otherwise, the process would be in jeopardy. Closely related to that is the fact that neither of the disputants should be forced to the negotiating table. They all have to present themselves willingly since it would be the only way they would be obliged to abide by the agreed upon resolutions. If not, such disputants would present themselves on the negotiation table, not because they are willing to resolve the issue, but for the reason that doing so would ensure that they are not sanctioned in case they fail to appear. As a result, the disputants reluctantly take part in the mediation or negotiation process of ADR something that does not represent democracy; hence, the process would not be successful at all.
Coupled with the exceeding deliberated facts, the Eye of the Storm Leadership recognizes that adequate preparation by both disputants would contribute towards a successful process of ADR. It is a fact that would be presumed or construed from Adler’s Policy Dialogs where it states that a detailed but flexible work plan that matches the needs for both disputants ought to be tabled. Such detailed but flexible work plan requires adequate time for preparations from both parties. Besides, it would be the only way that the disputants would really know and comprehend what they wish for, and at the same time, what they would comfortably compromise to make the process a success. Lack of preparation, therefore, becomes a pitfall for most negotiation processes considering the fact that the disputants might fail to bring with them necessary details that would ensure that the negotiation process becomes a success.
Moreover, lack of preparedness explains the reason why disputants would formulate excuses that will only resulting to waste of time as well as resulting in slowing the ADR process. Proper preparation has various benefits apart from saving time that would be taken in the negotiation process. For instance, comprehensive and in-depth preparedness helps in portraying that the disputant team is ready to reach an agreement or would be committed to fulfill its part as agreed. In addition, it helps to indicate that they facts that they present during the negotiation process is factual and truthful. That would raise the stake for the process to be successful bearing in mind that the other disputant’s hopes would increase something that would fasten the negotiation process to a successful conclusion. Hence, proper and adequate preparedness would be among the important aspects that would be taken into consideration in the process of designing an epitome and speculative cross-cultural ADR process for international disputants.
Adler Peter & Celico P. Kristi, (2003). Policy Dialogue. Retrieved on 25th June 2014; from