MID-1

LAW306
Name: Ehsanul Haque

ID: 1911924011

ANS. No. 1
Access to justice can be improved through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the context of
Bangladesh:

Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR is an alternate to the formal legal system. It is considered as an
additional means to access to justice but it does not replace the traditional court system. The formal
justice system is an adversarial system where only one party will get the benefit. On the other hand, the
attitude of ADR is non-adversarial system.

Justice is available everywhere as there are certain rules and laws. However, justice in law books is
different as it does not necessarily ensure actual justice. This is same internationally as well as in
Bangladesh. The number of backlogged cases in Bangladesh keep rising following the legal judiciary
system. For various reasons the cases get backlogged for which lawyers, judges and even the plaints are
to be held liable. The legal justice system consumes time too. But ADR is pretty straight forward and it
consumes less time. Parties involved in ADR can get benefitted equally, which is not possible in the legal
court system as only one party will get benefited. Here, Discussion and agreement upon the result is
resolution. Following ADR, the access of justice will become more efficient and faster. Traditionally, it
would be easier for Bengalis to follow the ADR rules as it has been passed from our history. ADR tries to
fine the common interest or problem between the parties involved and try to attain a mutual solution
between the parties. Since the objective of ADR is to unearth the common interest and form a
negotiation between the parties based on that common interest, the ADR process integrates parties and
provide them the option to continue relation on the basis of sharing interest. The outcomes attained
through ADR is not solely dependent on legal principles. Various social norms based on our society and
surroundings is adapted in ADR outcomes to enhance party interest. For these reasons access to justice
can be improved through ADR.

There are four different types of ADR techniques, one of which is negotiation. In negotiation both parties
negotiate with each other and come to a settlement, maintaining their interests. A third-party facilitator
is not necessary in negotiation. Negotiation is categorized into two types:

A) Adversarial negotiation:
Adversarial negotiations are basically traditional negotiations. Lawyers make the
negotiation in adversarial negotiation. The parties try to seek maximum victory in this
negotiation.
B) Principled or positional negotiation:
 The objective of principled negotiation is for the negotiator to determine the interest of the
other party and arrive at a win-win situation.

Among adversarial negotiation and principled negotiation, principled negotiation is more

effective in order to resolve a dispute through negotiation.

Adversarial negotiation is termed as “zero-sum” negotiation, which is a competitive negotiation.

The parties involved in dispute try to gain from their position and they seek to maximize their
victory. Since lawyers are trained in adversarial justice, they prefer using adversarial negotiation.
As a result, both parties become rigid to their positioning. The parties involved do not look to
the other’s interest, most times there remain a no-win situation. Therefore, solving disputes is
much tougher in adversarial negotiations.

On the other hand, principled negotiation is much more flexible. Here, the parties argue about
their position rather than their interests and talk in terms with their opposition. The parties
evaluate their own interest and determine the interest of the other party. Both parties can
jointly maximize their benefit since the parties are willing to sacrifice their position for the
greater good. As such the possibility of a win-win situation for both parties are very high. This is
why, principled negotiation is more effective to resolve a dispute.