When two different people work for the same thing, it is very common to raise a dispute in the process. It is very common for the international franchise also as the demographic and cultural difference between the franchisor and franchisees pays a big role. Whatever the reason is International Dispute Resolution is always a tricky card to play.
When it comes to dispute resolution, there are so many choices that the associates can be confused. Although there are many methods are available most of them prefer either mediation or arbitration as the preferred way for International Dispute Resolution.
Before going to the comparison, let’s have a look at both of the methods:
Mediation: In this process, both of the parties discuss under a neutral third-party mediator. Both of the parties bring out their points that start the conflict of interest. In it quite an informal way by which the parties can vent their feelings and explore the reasons for the grievance. The mediator tries to resolve the matter after hearing their interpretation. While working with both the parties together or separately, they try their level best to make sustainable as well as voluntary International Dispute Resolution.
Arbitration: It is more formal than mediation. Here the third party will serve as the judge who will try to resolve the dispute. The arbitrator will hear the argument of both sides and ask to present evidence. After analysis of all the reasoning and evidence, they will come to a judgment. In the arbitration process, can be done virtually also especially for the case of the International Dispute Resolution when the location can be a serious matter. However, it is not possible always as the mode of evidence not always virtually compatible.
Which One Is better?
Now finally, it is the time to analyze and compare both the methods. The main difference between these two is that mediation is a process to negotiate under the supervision of the third party. The resolution depends here on the agreement of both the parties. The mediator does not find fault or issue orders but helps the parties to reach the settlement through communication. On the other hand, arbitration is like a courtroom proceeding. The arbitrator will hear the testimony and check the evidence provided by the parties. The arbitrator must be a retired judge or experienced lawyer who is aware of the courtroom proceeding.
In a nutshell, we can say that if the matter can be resolved by communication only, the mediation is less time consuming and accessible method. But the case involves many complexities, then arbitration is the way to resolve the dispute outside of the courtroom.