Answer 2.

Negotiation is a form of decision making ranging from everyday communication to more

complex and stressful exchanges encounter in the context of disagreement or dispute.
Negotiation is generally referred to as an interactive communicative process that potentially
takes place whenever parties want something from someone else or from each other. The goal
of negotiation is achieving what parties’ desire by convincing each other about the result and
its necessary implications on the overall relationship between them.

Negotiation process has two approaches. Firstly, adversarial and secondly, principled
negotiation. The adversarial negotiation follows the distributive bargaining theory, assumes a
zero-sum-game where one side’s gain is the others loss. Integrative theory mainly focuses on
common interest and mutual gain. Because this theory considers more than one issue.
Position bargaining is another theory which emphasizes an adversarial model.

Negotiation have two styles i.e. principled negotiation and negotiation analysis.

Principled Negotiation

The concept of principled negotiation has widely discussed by Roger Fisher and William
Ury’s in the book name ‘Getting to Yes’. According to their writings principled negotiation is
based on zero-sum-game approach where it leads to inefficient compromise solutions that
makes both the side equally unhappy and that leaves joint gains on the table. On this point
getting to yes suggests the win-win solution by approaching integrative bargaining techniques
and advocates the use of objective criteria for the principled resolution of the distributive
aspect of negotiation.

There are various Methods for principled negotiation that can be adopted. Taking people out
of the problem, looking for shared interest, look for mutual options, base all ideas against
standardized objective criteria. Certain elements of negotiation has to consider while
initiating negotiation process. Interests, options, standard, people, BATNA.

In certain circumstances the approach can be soft and hard negotiation. In the soft negotiation
the goal can be agreement and in hard negotiation the goal might be the victory. In soft
negotiation parties’ relationship and trust, position can be maintained but in the hard
negotiation all the factor can get affected. The principled negotiation can help to focus on
being hard on merits and soft on people.
In the above given facts of the question there are more than two parties and to satisfy each
and every parties interest would be difficult. Looking for shared interest as a method of
principle negotiation can be failed due to differences in interest, views, and suggestions. But
by the method of principled negotiation the problem can be solved amicable as the ultimate
goal would be the problem solving. Principled negotiation can help to separate people from
the problem in the form of perception, emotion, communications, relationship and
commitments.

Adversarial Negotiation

Adversarial negotiation mainly focuses on positions. Here parties open with a demand that is
substantially more than they expect to receive or less than they expect to give. In the initial
strategy it become tough and hard. Because it uses lot of tactics, bluffing, deception, time
pressure and verbal aggression. Parties mostly concerned about the winning and not
acknowledging interests.

Structure for adversarial negotiation

- Setting the target points

- Setting of the resistance or reservation point
- Ritual of offer and demand with a pattern of reciprocal concession
- Compromise solution at some point along scale where target or resistance point
overlap.

In this form the multi-party can get more affected and also can lose their aim, goals, interest.
It will be hard for the parties to trust each other and maintain their relationship.

The aim of the given problem is to reach to a consensual agreement among the parties.
Therefore it need a good communication skills, listening dilemma, and a good listener. Jai
and veeru are the yong associates and may be they lack in theses skill as they have lack of
experience in the field of negotiation. To resolve the dispute, the question raised that which
of the two strategically models preferred for negotiation. The given dispute is regarding the
policy on voluntary retirement scheme, so there is a involvement of multi parties and interest
such as the employees, representatives of trade union, government. As it is mentioned that
determining the age of the emplyeess, financial elements, financial benefits and other
compensations for such employees and their period of entitlements to free medical and
housing allowances post retirement. All these are various intrests and factors that’s need to
considered therefore it can’t be win and win situation here. Therefore in such situation
mediation will be the better option to balance the interests of all.

ANSWER 3
It has been observed that the courts in India’s not adequate to settle the growing litigation
within reasonable time. It is very difficult for common man to access to justice. The reasons
behind this is litigation process entrapped him for longer time and investment of excessive
financial support. Therefore it gave the rise to Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms.

There are many problem faced by our legal system such as lack of awareness of legal rights
and remedies, the language of law found to be difficult for any common man, and most
common problem is delay is getting justice. It will lead to great loss of time and money.

ADR mechanism stand as a most easy method to solve all the above problems and make it
easy for the common people to access to justice. The primary object of the ADR is avoidance
of vexation, expense and delay and promotion of the ideal of access of justice for all. ADR is
a process distinct from normal judicial process. Under this, disputes are settled with the
assistance of third party, where proceedings are simple and are conducted, by and large, in
the manner agreed to by the parties. ADR stimulates to resolve the disputes expeditiously
with less expenditure of time, talent money with the decision making process towards
substantial justice, maintaining to confidentiality of subject matter.

ADR have various techniques as arbitration, mediation, conciliation, mediation-arbitration,

mini-trial, private judging, final offer arbitration, court annexed ADR and summary jury trial.
ADR techniques are considered to be more flexible in nature as well as in procedure several
other advantages.

ADVANTAGES OF ADR

Private process of dispute settlement, expeditious, informal, inexpensive, lack of technicality,

involve community participation, decision-making process is controlled by the parties, leads
to amicable results, relationship is secured, finality of result, confidentiality.

The rule of “presumptive mediation” defines that the process of mediation among all types of
dispute resolution options has the most likeliness to satisfy majority of parties’ goals and
overcoming the major impediments. Therefore, it should enjoy the status of being the first
‘default procedure’ of dispute resolution. I agree with the above statement because mediation
has the capacity to overcome all the impediments to settlement.

Mediation is the facilitative negotiation process in which disputing parties engage the
assistance of an impartial third party, the mediator, who helps them to try to arrive at an
agreed resolution of their disputes. Mediator is the facilitator and does not perform the role of
pro-active.

Mediation is the only procedure which satisfies the various dimensions such as cost, speed,
and maintain or improve the relationship among the parties. The One of the strength of the
mediation is that the recommendation of the mediator’s might be accepted by both the parties
more readily than the attorney suggestions. For the parties and common people the approach
of presumptive mediation found to be promising at the time of agreeing upon an ADR
procedure.

In some circumstances, parties lack in poor communications, different views of facts,

difference in cultural background, communication is affected by antagonism. In such
situations mediation is of great value. By controling communications between the parties,
keeping them physically apart, if necessary, and acting as a kind of translator the mediator
can literally separate the people from the problem. In addition, the mediator may encourage a
discussion of the factors leading to the dispute, and to the parties’ inability to resolve the
dispute on their own. How to improve the relationship, and thereby prevent future disputes,
or at least to resolve them more easily, may also be considered. At times, no settlement can
be achieved until the parties have had the opportunity to express their views to each other
about the dispute and each other's conduct. Mediation is clearly the preferred procedure when
venting is necessary. By providing an informal atmosphere that encourages full participation
by the disputants themselves, as well as by their lawyers, and by the presence of a neutral
who can control the venting process, mediation can create a safe harbor for the parties to
express their views fully.

Difference in views of legal outcomes if settlement is not reached then the mediator can often
persuade the parties to rsolve their dispute without determining which of their position is
right. At the time of multiple parties, with diverse interests, the problems are similar to those
raised by diverse constituencies and by issue linkages. Here, too, mediation will sometimes
succeed in finding a balance of interests that satisfies all.
ANSWER 4.

In the above given problem Timeson is free to choose various alternative dispute resolution
processes. Clients main goals are speedy resolution, protection of confidentiality, dispute
should be restricted within particular area or place, and not to come in contact with the local
government. After analysing all the goals negotiation and mediation seems to be better
alternatives.

Negotiation is generally referred to as an interactive communicative process that potentially

takes place whenever parties want something from someone else or from each other. The goal
of negotiation is achieving what parties’ desire by convincing each other about the result and
its necessary implications on the overall relationship between them. After analysing client’s
goals and impediments it can be state that client’s goal is to protect their confidentiality, and
territorial restriction to Bangladesh only and also a speedy resolution, negotiation will be the
best possible alternative. Negotiation helps to discover a constructive solution without
hampering the relationship. Consensual solution is the product of negotiation. Therefore as
stated in the facst both the parties can be able to discuss on their goals and interest also may
help to negotiate on compensation price. Mr. Kazi Mukta already had suffered from loss of
his reputation and therefore it may be difficult for him to go for litigation. All the interest and
goals of the parties satisfies the components and elements of Negotiation.

If he would have chosen litigation in Bangladesh, it may have hampered his reputation and
involvement of government and loss of time and money. The process of litigation is a lengthy
and time consuming process. Here the parties interest and does not match and therefore going
for litigation will be bad option.

If he go for mediation there is an involvement of third party. Where the mediator will assist
them in problem solving. The mediator has no authority to make any decisions that are
binding on them, but uses certain procedures, techniques and skills to help them to negotiate
an agreed resolution of their dispute without adjudication.

Arbitration is a private adjudicatory process. The process of arbitration is mainly used for
contractual and civil dispute. Here the parties by agreement decides to refer their dispute to
be settled by a neutral adjudicator. His final decision is binding on the parties. So if the
arbitration is chosen for settlement it will directly go out of the stream of litigation. It will
hamper the relation between parties and will have to rub the shoulders with local government.
One of the impediment of the dispute is the source of information which he is not sure about
it and will have to review. Parties does not want to extend the dispute to any other country
and therefore the arbitration in India or any other country does not make it worth in this
situation.

All the options of dispute resolution have certain merits and demerits. To fit the dispute in
any particular process is a task. All the alternative dispute resolution process works on the
elements of process such as goals, interests, and aim of the parties. There are many
possibilities that one party can gain the benefit and other can suffer the loss. Therefore to
come on the amicable solution is the ultimate criteria of dispute resolution process.