The Curious Case of Transformative Dispute Resolution: An Unfortunate Marriage of Intransigence, Exclusivity, and Hype
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, v. 14, no. 3, 2013, p. 621-
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-34
Why do proponents of Transformative Dispute Resolution (TDR) defend the Theory in such intransigent, exclusivist, and grandiose terms? TDR is a mature theory, and a relatively sophisticated one, and qualities of this sort usually go hand in hand with a balanced, refined, and well-modulated sense of self. But TDR proponents will have none of that. They make ambitious (some would say outlandish) assertions about the Theory’s capacity to develop moral and political character, reform deliberative government, and resolve ethno-political conflict, while simultaneously rejecting overtures from sympathetic outsiders to rein in the overstated aspects of these claims and craft a more plausible view. While not the most popular theory in American dispute resolution scholarship, TDR is the most self-assured, the most insular, and the most overblown, and this combination of qualities, coupled with the Theory’s seeming ability to thrive in the face of withering criticism, makes it a interesting curiosity well worth re-visiting.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 63
Keywords: ADR, transformative dispute resolution, mediation, deliberative government, moral development, ethno-political conflictAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 28, 2012 ; Last revised: July 12, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds