This article critiques the simple black/white categorisation of mainstream versus alternative dispute resolution, and argues that what is needed is a cartography of dispute resolution institutions that maps the full range of approaches and traces their interaction. It sketches the first lines of such a map by describing two examples of conflict resolution in Japan. Neither can justly be called “alternative”, yet neither fits the mould of what might be called mainstream or classical dispute resolution. One, judicial settlement, focuses on process; the other, compensating victims of the Fukushima disaster, engages a specific event. Together, they help to illustrate why the term ADR is so unhelpful in our effort to classify and analyse conflict domestically and cross-culturally, and provide some insight into the rich array of methods that people use to settle their disputes.
Comparative law, cross-cultural comparison, dispute settlement, wakai, judicial dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, legal profession, lawyers, judges, caseload, clearance, disaster victim compensation
Feldman, Eric, "No Alternative: Resolving Disputes Japanese Style" (2014). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1551.
Asian Studies Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons