Author(s): Vanshita Malhotra and Ananya Mittal
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 3
Citation: IJLSSS 3(3) 35
Page No: 448 – 460
ABSTRACT
Dispute resolution is an essential yet often overlooked tool for managing various crises, including natural disasters, political conflicts, corporate disputes, and public health emergencies. This research explores the diverse functions of dispute resolution mechanisms—such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and online dispute resolution (ODR)—in the context of crisis management. These mechanisms promote effective communication, collaboration, and fair solutions at different stages: prevention, intervention, and post-crisis recovery. Through case studies, the research demonstrates their use in areas like vaccine distribution, corporate governance, and community rehabilitation, highlighting both achievements and obstacles, such as resistance from stakeholders and cultural differences. The study emphasizes the potential of dispute resolution to turn crises into opportunities for growth, stressing the importance of building trust, developing capacity, and integrating technology. By aligning dispute resolution practices with broader crisis management strategies, this research showcases their crucial role in enhancing resilience and sustainable development in an increasingly complex global environment.
INTRODUCTION
Disasters of various types, whether they are climatic, political, internal or global/organizational, and pandemic diseases are part of people’s lives. Such conditions, which involve time pressure, the level of risk, and the crucial importance of the decisions to be made, are normally rather problematic for societies, specific institutions, and individuals in question. It is possible for crises to have severe consequences on societies such as economic shocks, civil disorder and mal- adjustive personal effects. The successful management of these crises has to be multi-faceted and prompt action and conflict regulation work wonders in preventing the worst from happening. Dispute resolution is one of the most potent but least studied instruments in the context in question.
Dispute means conflict management, which refers to methods of conflict resolution such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or mixed within a particular conflict management strategy. These methods, previously utilized in legal and business issues, have become inevitable in addressing crises that are cross-sectional and transnational. Overall, dispute resolution mechanisms ensure a constructively driven approach toward active communication, conflict resolution, and negotiation in stages before, during, or after a crisis has occurred.
This research focuses on crisis management and seeks to explain the place of dispute resolution in a modern crisis. Not all of the crises call for intense and short-term management of the effects but those that necessitate ongoing intervention in regard to the causes. These characteristics are especially appropriate for such challenges because different dispute resolution mechanisms appear to be efficient, flexible, and independent from the parties. However, there is still more that can be said about their usefulness in crisis situations, first, which brings us to the subject of this paper: the unnecessarily broad application of the AVSI formula. There are also negative influences that come with them such as; cultural differences, power relations, and stakeholder resistance.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to assess the effectiveness of dispute resolution practices in dealing with crises and, second, to outline how these practices can be used in a range of settings to achieve the best results. Having sought to determine how dispute resolution mechanisms have been used successfully in international diplomacy, corporate disputes, public health, and
community conflicts this research will give a holistic view of how and where they have not worked. Furthermore, this paper aims at showing that the prospect of complex crises in the context of globalization and technological advances is a daunting one and at identifying suggestions that could help the improvement of such mechanisms.
Finally, this research illustrates the necessity of incorporating dispute resolution into the framework of crisis management solutions. It seeks to bring a new perspective to the importance of Conflict management and development as a way of being able to manage the complexity and increased uncertainty that characterise the current world. Dispute resolution mechanisms have the capability to ensure dialogue and cooperation, and to provide integrated solutions, promising transformation of crises into opportunities for developmental changes.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
A crisis is an acute and disruptive event or condition that overwhelms an individual’s or system’s usual coping mechanisms, creating a sense of instability and tension. It arises when a problem is perceived as insoluble with existing resources, posing a significant threat to essential life goals. Crises are usually time-limited phenomena, lasting anywhere from one to six weeks and characterized by elevated physical and emotional responses, which include generalized tension, anxiety, helplessness, and defensiveness.1 They disrupt normal behaviour, often leading to less efficient functioning. The subjective nature of crises means that their perception varies from person to person, influenced by individual interpretation and context. Additionally, crises often reactivate unresolved issues from the past, intensifying their impact. They progress through stages, including rising tension, problem-solving attempts, emergency responses, and potential disorganisation if unresolved. These defining characteristics make crises both challenging and transformative, offering opportunities for growth or risks of maladaptation depending on the response.
A crisis often creates fertile ground for disputes, as heightened emotions and unresolved tensions bring individuals or groups into conflict. Disputes—minor or major- can destroy relationships and stifle productivity; sometimes, the implications extend further for those involved. To counteract such negative effects, effective dispute resolution mechanisms become necessary. These are
1 Eastham K, Coates D and Allodi F, ‘The Concept of Crisis’ (1970).
supposed to enable peaceful, constructive, and very often binding solutions that will let the parties in conflict resolve their problems in a structured manner. Dispute resolution methods range from traditional legal approaches, like litigation, to alternative mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, A newer mechanism developed is online dispute resolution, or ODR. Balancing fairness, efficiency, and preservation of relationships, each of these approaches becomes imperative in assessing the context and needs of a dispute when selecting a resolution method.
For example, negotiation and mediation emphasize flexibility, direct communication, and mutual agreement, thus allowing parties to create solutions that are tailor-made and quite often amicable. Mediation, in particular, involves a neutral third party who facilitates dialogue without imposing decisions, preserving relationships while fostering collaboration. On the other hand, arbitration and expert determination offer more formal and binding resolutions, ensuring that outcomes are guided by expertise or adjudicated judgments. Litigation, on the other hand, is highly structured and enforceable but often entails lengthy and costly proceedings that may strain relationships. Meanwhile, ODR offers a modern solution, using technology to resolve disputes conveniently and efficiently, especially in cases involving e-commerce or online interactions.2 Both methods have their advantages and challenges, and the choice of the appropriate mechanism necessitates a good understanding of the nature of the dispute, the relationship dynamics, and the desired outcomes. By using these mechanisms judiciously, parties can effectively navigate through conflicts and preserve both personal and professional relationships while reaching just resolutions.
ROLE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CRISIS MANAGEMENT
The very nature of crises being dynamic and unpredictable is needed for a solid framework that can help deal with conflict that arises during such a time. Some of the resolution models have included negotiation, mediation, arbitration, as well as, mixed models and these have been incredibly useful in reducing the effects of crises. They are useful in conflict management in that they allow for action, understanding and practical resolution of disputes so as to allow the management of crises effectively. This section explores the critical roles dispute resolution plays
2 Ondeyo R, ‘8 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms’ (23 November 2023) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/8-
mechanisms-dispute-resolution-risper-ondeyo-oisgc/ accessed 12 January 2025.
in crisis management, categorized into three primary stages: It plays the role of universal prevention, targeted prevention, and crisis intervention as well as post-crisis mitigation.
- Conflict avoidance with the help of Disputes Solving- One of the important functions of dispute resolution in crisis management is the function of prevention. Furthermore it is important that potential conflicts can already be seen from a distance and be remedied with negotiation or mediation. For example:
- Early Warning Systems: Early indicator of strife in organizations, communities or nations, active mediation can help manage conflict by finding the seeds of the conflict. If these tensions are well tackled then disputes lead to emergence of other conflicts such as during economic downturn or political instabilities.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Dispute resolution involves getting interacting with the stakeholders within order to nurture the relational trust and share common objectives. In public health for example, involving the people in some of the decisions that affect them such as accepting prevention strategies including vaccination may reduce social mobilization against the strategies.
- Policy Development: Disputes arising while implementing and developing policies that concern crisis preparedness; including environmental, disaster management and corporate business continuity policies, may be settled through arbitration and negotiations.
- During Active crises intervention can also take place in situations that are going bad and this may include- In the crisis, the primary interest is to prevent or to act and take a case. Conflict resolution tactics assist in containing short term conflicts which occur as a result of stressful and sensitive conditions.
- Facilitating Communication: Conflict is a normality in organizations because the crises involve more than one party with different interests hence creating barriers to communication. Mediators are third party people who can work to reopen channels of communication between the two parties and make sure that everyone is being heard. For instance, in humanitarian crises the most appropriate model of intervention is the mediation
between the governmental and non-governmental organizations regarding the distribution of resources and relief provision.
- Reducing Escalation: Mediation and compromise avoid disputes turn into acts of violence or some irreversible action. Thus in political crises the principle of negotiation can define strategies for calming the conflicting parties with the aim of avoiding new conflicts and unrest.
- Time-Efficient Solutions: Arbitration provides a relatively fast delivery of conflict management compared to legal hurdles that may dictate crisis management times. For example, where contractual parties are in a supply chain and a crisis results in disputes on delivery of vital services, arbitration may help to keep such services going by coming up with a resolution.Post crisis management and reconciliation- After Management crisis, there is always the issue of dealing with the effect of the crisis and the question of trust with stakeholders. There is little doubt that there are a number of legal procedures that may be pursued by stressed companies and investors; however, mechanisms of dispute resolution are also important to stabilize the pathway of recovery.Restoring Relationships: Emergency situations often create debris of severed relations between people or shattered relations between different communities, organizations, or states. Compliance and negotiation enable it to restore trust so people would feel that they are all in it together and share the same vision of tackling the issue.Achieving Restorative Justice: They say that after-effect recovery scenarios contain meeting concerns and offering compensation to the aggrieved persons. There is every prospect in using the concept of restorative justice methods for healing social breaches such as the community mediation that is efficient in civil unrest or war situations.
- Policy and Institutional Reforms: The solutions can result in changes in the leadership systems or structures within an organization to avoid a similar challenge in future. For instance, in the case of the crisis, truth and reconciliation commissions have in the past used both conflict settlement and program alteration, to deal with other structural factors that caused the crisis.
- Disputes: Managing Conflict for the Resilience of Systems- Beyond even facilitating crisis management, systems of dispute resolution serve as approaches to building more durable and responsive structures.
- Capacity Building: Promoting your staff to be able to negotiate and mediate the conflicts that may crop up helps them handle them without much reference to other parties. It will be ideal, for example, in disaster prone areas because the focus is largely on community resilience.Promoting Inclusivity: Dispute resolution assumes everyone regardless of their status is part of the decision-making, making the possible unfair recovery mechanisms minority- proof. For instance, involving women, minorities, and indigenous people in the decisions making post disaster can lead to preparedness of better and inclusive solutions.
- Global Cooperation: On the international plane, arbitration and negotiation help countries come to terms with each other so that they can address global problems such as climate change, and take everyone to the task because everyone is a part of the problem.
Finally, it should be noted that the regulation of crises at all their levels is impossible without the help of mechanisms for resolving disputes. Such mechanisms not only resolve present-day disputes but also promote the development of sustainable systems that may operate in the face of adversity in the future; such mechanisms introduce fairness in the dialogue. Thus, it is more important than ever that the resolution of disputes across such crises is integrated into the frameworks centered around management of crises.
CASE STUDIES: ROLE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CRISIS MANAGEMENT
Public Health Crises: Negotiation During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic starkly exposed the complexities of managing global crises, highlighting the critical role of negotiation in addressing disputes over vaccine distribution and resource allocation. As high-income countries secured vast quantities of vaccines through advanced purchasing agreements, often leaving low-income nations without timely access, the
resulting inequities underscored a failure to approach the pandemic as a shared global challenge.3 These disparities exacerbated tensions and highlighted the absence of a robust multilateral negotiation framework to foster transparency, equity, and solidarity. Initiatives like COVAX, which aimed to ensure equitable vaccine access, struggled due to underfunding and limited support, compounded by the lack of enforceable commitments to fair pricing and technology- sharing agreements. This demonstrates how effective dispute resolution mechanisms—such as multilateral negotiation, mediation, and contractual frameworks emphasizing shared global health priorities—could have mediated competing interests and prevented resource hoarding. By addressing these gaps, negotiation practices can foster trust among global actors, promote equity, and enable coordinated responses to future pandemics, ensuring that critical resources are distributed based on need rather than economic power.
Corporate Crises: Arbitration in Corporate Disputes
Financial downturns and hostile takeovers often intensify corporate disputes, making arbitration an essential mechanism for ensuring organizational continuity and stability. In Nigeria’s corporate governance sector, economic challenges amplified disagreements among stakeholders regarding governance roles, strategic priorities, and decision-making authority. To address these conflicts, the Arbitration and Mediation Act (2023) was introduced, aligning with international standards and significantly enhancing the efficacy of arbitration. This framework provides a faster, confidential, and cost-effective alternative to litigation, enabling organizations to resolve disputes efficiently while preserving stakeholder relationships and protecting corporate reputations.4 Arbitration’s ability to maintain operational stability and bolster investor confidence during periods of economic uncertainty highlights its indispensable role in crisis management. This case demonstrates the importance of embedding arbitration provisions within corporate governance
3 Praštalo B and Lau PL, ‘Procurement of COVID-19 Vaccines: Exploration from the Negotiation and Contracting Perspective’ (2023) 7 Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation 27 https://doi.org/10.1177/20555636231222194 accessed 10 January 2025.
4 Ekpenisi C and others, ‘Legal Issues Concerning the Role of Arbitration in Resolving Corporate Governance Dispute in Nigeria’ (2024) 10–1 NIU Journal of Legal Studies https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383063891accessed 8 January 2025.
structures, ensuring disputes are resolved swiftly and fostering long-term resilience in the face of crises.
International Conflicts: UN Mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Mediation is a conflict resolution process where disputants seek the assistance of a third party, such as a state, group of states, or organization, to settle their conflict without resorting to physical force or legal authority. The United Nations’ Guidance for Effective Mediation highlights key principles for successful mediation, including consent, impartiality, inclusivity, national ownership, and quality peace agreements.5 While mediation has long been employed in private and commercial disputes, it is particularly effective in resolving international political conflicts due to three reasons: the high cost of conflict amplified by states’ destructive weaponry, the absence of universally accepted rules or a central authority to regulate state behaviour, and the diffusion of power across multiple sovereign units. Mediation’s voluntary and non-coercive nature allows it to reconcile these diverse interests without undermining states’ sovereignty. A notable example of this is the UN’s mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where decades of efforts, including advocating for a two-state solution and coordinating international actors, have faced challenges such as deep-seated mistrust, entrenched political positions, structural inequalities, and enforcement issues. This case underscores the need for stronger UN mechanisms, more inclusive dialogue, and multidimensional approaches to build trust and achieve sustainable peace in protracted international disputes.
Community Disputes
Mediation has emerged as a crucial mechanism for resolving community disputes after natural disasters, addressing conflicts stemming from displacement, resource scarcity, and insurance claims. Programs like the American Arbitration Association’s initiatives following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita efficiently resolved thousands of insurance disputes, enabling victims to expedite
5 Senadeera M and Dasanayaka MDMS, ‘Conflict Resolution in International Diplomacy: A Case Study of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ (2023) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370134520 accessed 9 January 2025.
their recovery.6 These initiatives did, however, also highlight issues like power disparities between resourceful insurers and defenceless claimants, many of whom were unrepresented and suffered from psychological stress. For mediation systems to be fair, informed consent must be given first priority, cognitive impairments must be addressed, and mediators must be trained to deal with the emotional toll that tragedies take. Mediation not only settles conflicts but also promotes community healing and unity in times of crisis by encouraging fair communication and restoring confidence.
EFFECTIVENESS AND CHALLENGES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CRISIS MANAGEMENT
Negotiation, mediation and arbitration commonly used processes used in managing crises, help in providing different avenues of amicable resolution of the conflicts. These methods encourage stakeholders to speak assertively and express their concerns while other stakeholders find a way to compromise and satisfy all. For instance, in labour disputes in financial crises, mediation has only helped to reconcile employers and employees to prevent strikes thus fulfilling the objective of continuing operations in closed organizations. Additionally, techniques of conflict resolution are mostly cheaper and faster compared with those of litigation, which makes them appropriate for application where speed is of essence. One more benefit is their non-prescriptive nature based on which clients can set up business solutions meeting their personal requirements of the parties involved. Especially in environmental emergencies, it has paid off to use concepts of conflict solving for the fair distribution of resources and to sketch contest-specific injury prevention measures. These mechanisms also avoid use of adversarial processes that could strain stakeholder relations; a key issue when reimplementing structures that are devastated by events like natural disasters is establishing trust among people. In addition, at the global level, emerging disputes help to co-operate at the global level, international arbitration provides solutions to complicated cross- border concerns such trade disputes, pollution and global change agreements.
Nonetheless, like with the case of other organizational methodologies, the use of dispute resolution to deal with crises is not without challenges. Sometimes the contract is signed under pressure exerted by a stronger party over the weaker one, which reduces the level of justice of the process.
6 ‘Mass Disaster Mediation: Innovative, ADR, or a Lion’s Den’ (2007) 7 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 401.
Another issue is mistrust among stakeholders again especially in critical situations where people feel that mediators or arbitrators have bias, therefore there might be reluctance in implementing the results. Compared to litigation, dispute resolution may be quicker but crises including the current health issues concerning pandemics may need instant solutions that even hi-speed arbitration may not offer. This process becomes problematic because different stakeholders have conflicting goals and objectives, making it difficult for even mediators with the best intentions and neutrality, to achieve those goals especially if the given conflict has political implications. Also social, cultural and legal consideration may also prove a hurdle especially when dealing with cross- jurisdictional relations because what holds during normalcy may not be the same when a crisis strikes.
The absence of strict legal remedies is still another shortcoming because relatively informal forms of settlement such as mediation typically do not presuppose compulsory adherence to the decision made, which may not always be pursued since there is practically no control. In emotionally fueled scenarios further frustration can also present a challenge to the process of mood regulation throughout the crisis and that can be a major challenge for a mediator, especially in emotionally charged cases when death toll and vast extent of material losses is an issue. Last, the availability of properly qualified mediators or arbitrators and the general availability of resources may also limit the feasibility and efficacy of implementing standard mechanisms of crisis solving that would not be a problem in more industrialized and situated nations or localities.
Therefore, the use of the mere DR mechanisms are incredibly helpful for managing the crises but their efficiency lies in the context and the ways of overcoming the essential challenges. For mediators to increase effectiveness of disputes these need to be aligned with: •Strengthening trust with the actors •Developing capacities of mediators •Linking dispute resolution with other crisis management strategies. The necessary adjustments to such mechanisms with reference to particular crisis situations can also improve their impact and guarantee sustainable and fair results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To effectively improve dispute resolution mechanisms, it is essential to promote the use of technology-driven solutions such as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). This method can help alleviate the burden on courts, minimize delays, and make justice more accessible and affordable. Key steps include strengthening digital infrastructure, improving digital literacy, and tackling structural challenges like the urban-rural divide.7 Additionally, fostering trust through government endorsement of ODR and focused awareness campaigns can boost public confidence. Enhancing training for neutrals and paralegals, establishing phased regulatory frameworks, and encouraging innovation in the private sector are crucial steps. The judiciary, government, and private sectors need to work together to transform dispute resolution into a more efficient, inclusive, and accessible system.
Involving affected communities in the process is crucial for enhancing dispute-resolution mechanisms. This can be done by directly engaging stakeholders in the design and implementation of solutions, making sure that the processes are inclusive and cater to local needs. Collaboration across borders among countries and international organizations can also significantly contribute to resolving disputes that arise from global crises, promoting a cohesive and effective approach to resolution. Furthermore, providing specialized training and development programs for mediators and arbitrators tailored to specific crises can improve their capacity to handle complex cases successfully.
Leveraging technology and digital platforms can also play a pivotal role in modern dispute resolution mechanisms. Technology facilitates remote mediation and arbitration, increasing accessibility for parties in different locations and reducing logistical barriers that often hinder timely resolutions. Additionally, establishing mechanisms for continuous feedback and evaluation from stakeholders ensures that the processes remain dynamic and evolve to meet emerging needs. Integrating culturally sensitive practices and localized knowledge further enhances the legitimacy and acceptance of the solutions offered. Public awareness campaigns can educate individuals about the availability and advantages of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, demystifying these
7 he NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR and others, ‘The ODR Policy Plan for India’ (2021) https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Designing-The-Future-of-Dispute-Resolution-The-ODR-Policy- Plan-for-India.pdf accessed 14 January 2025.
processes and encouraging broader adoption.8 Promoting transparency in mediation and arbitration practices, while ensuring confidentiality where required, will also strengthen trust in these systems. These focused initiatives can help establish a robust and flexible dispute-resolution framework that can tackle a variety of challenges.
CONCLUSION
Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are widely used to show their importance to prevent and solve different types of crises. Thus, the mechanisms offer a set of procedures aimed at regulating conflicts, which helps to involve all parties in continuous discussion and make decisions mainly based on equity. They are most useful where there is flexibility and especially in crises, and they may be applied in disease control, corporate conflicts, international systems, or communities. Let it be the timely initial response and involvement of the stakeholders, or response to the aftermath of severe conflict by means of restorative justice; the use of the dispute resolution mechanisms contributes toward attaining stability and rebuilding in the face of adversity. However, the applicability of these strategies is fully dependent upon managing such issues as power relations, trust issues, and cultural and legal constraints. They are also implementation challenges due to resource constraints and high emotional stakes in crises. For dispute resolution mechanisms to fully realize their potential it needs to be placed within the context of deeper organizational crisis management systems, reinforced by trust-related measures, capacity development and technological interventions such as ODR.
These mechanisms are all the more critical as global crises become more and more sophisticated. Thus, linking the patterns of the crisis regulation with the particular contexts of the conflict and advancing cooperation on the international level serve not only for better conflict resolution but also for the development of immunity against upcoming problems. Finally, many results of the dispute resolution underline it as a mediator between the conflict and cooperation: turning the crisis into the development and contact.
8 Law Reform Commission, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation’ (2010) LRC 98-2010 https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/reports/r98adr.pdf accessed 7 January 2025.