Alternative dispute resolution, justice and accountability in Norwegian civil justice

Abstract

The terminology and taxonomies of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes are imprecise. This chapter contends that the overly broad terminology has repercussions on the quality of justice that ADR produces. Thus, it is argued that we need to define which type(s) of justice each mediation process should serve in order to design a process that produces such justice, and that we need to distinguish between different forms of ‘evaluative' mediation. Methods to close the accountability deficit in mediation processes intimately connected to the justice system are discussed. In the final part, three of the most used ADR processes in Norway, court-connected mediation, Conciliation Boards, and public consumer dispute resolution, are critically assessed as to whether and how they deliver a fair process and just outcomes and render the neutral assisting the parties in resolving their dispute accountable for the quality of the process.