Carrie Menkel-Meadow's splendid discussion of dispute resolution theory operates at several levels.' One level involves a questioning of the international applicability of U.S. dispute resolution theory. She shows that our theory is in many respects parochial-not necessarily capable of explaining or even contributing to shaping dispute resolution behavior outside the United States. For the theory to make any claim to universality, she suggests, it must take into account very different settings and perhaps even develop counter models applicable to some places but not others. A more context sensitive theory, she argues, can move us beyond concepts and approaches uncritically derived from U.S.-oriented assumptions about the interests and behaviors of parties to a dispute. The article deserves a very careful reading for these and other insights about the current state of dispute resolution theory in the United States and its potential relationship to dispute processes found abroad or in transnational contexts.
Bryant G. Garth,
Taking Dispute Resolution Theory Seriously at Home and Abroad: Prospects and Limitations,
2003 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2003/iss2/4