Environmental dispute resolution
Mediation is often particularly appropriate for resolving environmental conflicts. This possibility was discussed at length at the National Conference on Environmental Dispute Resolution, sponsored by the Conservation Foundation and held in Washington, DC in late January 1983. Conference participants gave many reasons why the courtroom is often a less-than-satisfactory vehicle for resolving environmental conflicts. Environmental suits are almost always tied to specific points of law. They may have little to do with what the plaintiff is attempting to accomplish. Another drawback of litigation is that it often creates a winner and a loser. In contrast, mediation seeks a solution that makes both sides winners. Furthermore, when a court is forced to find a solution, this sometimes results in placing the burden of running an environmental agency or fishery, for instance, on the court - which does not have the appropriate expertise. Another reason mediation is useful is that the courts have become overloaded with environmental disputes. Mediation frequently obtains results more favorable than what a court could order, and it may restrain the tendency of conflicting parties to advocate an extreme position in anticipation of being forced into a compromise. Mediation is generally less costly and time-consuming than litigation.
- OSTI ID:
- 5910909
- Journal Information:
- Environ. Sci. Technol.; (United States), Journal Name: Environ. Sci. Technol.; (United States) Vol. 17:4; ISSN ESTHA
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Mediation: a sellout for conservation advocates, or a bargain. [Advantages as compared with litigation]
Mediation and arbitration of environmental disputes: Cost effective alternatives to litigation