A writer in a legal journal said, 'Alternative dispute resolution is now the best way to resolve civil disputes' - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 8 - 2008 - Paper 1

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to processes like mediation and arbitration, used to resolve disputes outside traditional court settings. This method has several strengths:

1. Cost-Effectiveness: ADR typically incurs lower costs than litigation, making it more accessible to parties involved.
2. Speed of Resolution: ADR processes often resolve disputes more quickly than court proceedings, which can be prolonged.
3. Confidentiality: Unlike court cases, which are public, ADR proceedings can be kept confidential, protecting the parties' privacy.
4. Flexibility: ADR is adaptable, allowing parties to select procedures that suit their needs and preferences.
5. Preservation of Relationships: ADR, particularly mediation, promotes cooperation and communication, which can help maintain relationships after disputes.

However, there are also limitations to ADR:

1. Limited Scope of Remedies: Parties may not achieve the same legal remedies available through litigation.
2. Power Imbalances: In some cases, stronger parties may dominate negotiations, leading to unsatisfactory outcomes for weaker parties.
3. Lack of Formal Guidance: ADR lacks the strict legal framework which can lead to varied outcomes.

In conclusion, while I agree that ADR is often an effective way to resolve civil disputes due to its various advantages, it is essential to recognize its limitations and the contexts in which it may not be the best approach.