State Courts

State courts have broad jurisdiction which means that the cases they hear involves crimes such as robberies, traffic violations, murders that may have occurs in their state and domestic violence. The only cases that don’t play out in state courts are lawsuits against the United States and those involving certain specific federal laws: criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and some maritime cases.

The dual court system of United States is clearly a product of the historical development. The historical development in the judicial aspects of court systems adopted by the thirteen colonies provides the basis of this distinctive and dual court system. The federal government and thus the federal courts handle the issues related to the national interests. On the other hand, state governments and eventually state courts are also responsible to cater to the issues at state level. However, one state is not allowed to get involved in the matters of others (James, 2009).

The federal court is the highest and final arbiter of all constitutional cases while cases heard in the state courts can still proceed to the upper courts including the federal court. The state court has more jurisdiction than the federal court. The federal judicial system is much formal than the state court. For example nobody (including the attorneys) is allowed to talk when the judge is on the bench. Investigation of cases in the federal judicial system is done by the federal agencies like FBI and DEA while for state courts, it is the local organizations that investigate the cases (Howard Jr.,

When we discuss the process between the State and Federal courts there are not too many differences in regards to policies and procedures. State courts are organized at the state level and federal courts were established by the Constitution so that they could decide cases involving the Constitution and laws that were passed by Congress. The only real difference between federal and state courts are defined by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the determining factor in deciding which court can actually can hear the case. State courts have a tremendous range in jurisdiction, because so many of the cases involving individual citizens are most likely to be violations of broken contracts, robberies, traffic and family disputes are handled in state

The United States Constitution creates the judicial branch of the government that led to establishing the Supreme Court. American legal system has a significant part in shaping, preserving freedom and equality (ushistory.org p, 9a). According to the United States Court, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was used for the first time, it started with six justices (2015). Currently, the Supreme Court has eight federal associate justices and one chief justice, all serves for life. Congress creates the Federal Court and has the power to reorganize the court system. The court has the authority to protect the freedom of speech unjust or to express an opinion. Supreme Court makes the last decision about all cases that deals with the federal laws and treaties. As part of the judicial branch of the government the Supreme Court, reviews and explains laws, resolves dispute and decides if a law goes against the United States Constitution. These cases are under the “appellate jurisdiction.” The judiciary chooses which case to hear, justices never

Arbitration involves a presentation of evidence by both sides to a dispute, much like in a typical lawsuit. The difference is that an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators hears the evidence rather than the judge.

Both Conciliation and mediation initiate in an agreement among the disputants to call in the help of a facilitator to aid in the structuring and conduct of settlement negotiations which will comprise, as part of their nature, private consultations with each disputant. Usually no one has an authority to impose a solution on the disputant this includes judges, arbitrators and facilitators. A third party that is the mediator is in the mediation process, he/she facilitates the resolution process(and may even suggest a resolution, typically known as a "mediator 's proposal"), this however does not inflict a resolution on the parties. In Australia ADR is mediation because after all mediation is a process of ADR. The distinction among the processes lies in the position of the third-party facilitator whose role may be submissive this means to find a consensual agreement without providing opinions by isolating the issues of

The use of mediation in a dispute is one of the interventions used to resolve conflicts. The parties will actively participate in this process because of his or her stake in a resolution. The agreement reached is ultimately between the two parties and is not imposed. However, this does not mean that a mediator is limited to his or her personal opinion about a dispute. Because a mediator is to remain impartial and neutral, the mediator is to separate his or

Negotiation, refers to the process of having the two sides come to an agreement without the help of an externality. This could be beneficial to both parties because they can come to an agreement of their own terms and both side win. Mediation is when a neutral authority brings both sides to the table to help solve the dispute. Benefits to doing this process, is that the mediator can provide alternatives to how to solve the dispute, although results are nonbinding. Arbitration is when a third party decides the outcome of a dispute. For the winning party is an advantage because the decision in not appealable, it only can be

Mediation refers to a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which the parties in a dispute meet with a neutral third-party in an effort to settle a case or reach an agreement over a dispute. The parties must recognize that the mediator is neutral and not on either parties side. The mediator attempts to help each party understand the other parties claim or concern and come to mutual agreement amongst themselves. The mediator is not the ultimate decision maker; it is the parties that must agree.

In both arbitration and mediation there is an impartial third party. In arbitration, there tends to be more than one arbitrator. In arbitration, there is a “panel of multiple arbitrators” (“Mediation”, 2015), where one arbitrator is chosen by each side. Afterwards, the two arbitrators then “select a third” (“Mediation”, 2015) to complete the panel. The panel’s role in arbitration involves coming to decision after hearing parties “testify under oath” (“Comparison”, 2015) and examining the evidence presented. Unlike arbitration, mediators help both parties with the “discussion and eventual resolution” (“Mediation”, 2015) of their conflict and case. In a mediation, both parties select a mediator to help create more understanding, which tends to be a less formal process than that of an arbitration.

Mediation, according to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) in England, can be defined as a flexible process conducted confidentially in which a neutral person assists the parties in working towards a negotiated agreement of a dispute or difference, with the parties in ultimate control of the decision to settle and the terms of resolution. Despite its flexibility, mediation is a formal process, involving parties who voluntarily agree to the amicable dissolution of their issues, with the aim of preserving their relationship . They achieve this with the help of a mediator, to whom the parties relinquish some measure of their control, to act as the go between that would guide the process and elicit the full

Conflict management and resolution can be approached through numbers of ways that ramble from least to most threats. Legislation, political action or violent forces are common methods to avoid conflicts however talking with the dispute parties, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication must be used in conflict resolution process. Conflict parties who cannot negotiate together efficiently may hire mediator or negotiator to make easy negotiation procedure. Thus mediation is considered as the interference or involvement in a high level negotiation with third party who has no reliable or authoritative executive power. The primary goal of mediator is to skillfully assist the concerned (involved) parties reaching a mutually

Conflict Management Arbitration and Mediation It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international investment and trade. Increasingly, arbitration and mediation, instead of litigation in national courts, have become the preferred means of resolving international commercial disputes. Arbitration: Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to an arbitrator or to a tribunal of several arbitrators who give a decision on the dispute that is binding on the parties. In contrast to mediation, once the parties have freely agreed to submit a dispute to arbitration, a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from the arbitration. Expedited Arbitration: Expedited Arbitration is, as its name suggests, a form of arbitration in which certain modifications are introduced in order to ensure that the arbitration can be conducted and an award rendered in a shortened time frame and, consequently, at a reduced cost. To achieve those objectives, the modifications provide for a sole arbitrator (rather than a tribunal of several arbitrators), shortened time periods for each of the steps involved in the arbitration proceedings, and condensed hearings before the sole arbitrator. Mediation Followed, in the Absence of a Settlement, by Arbitration: This procedure combines, sequentially, both mediation and arbitration. Where the

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which parties involved in a dispute exhibit their confirmation to an unbiased "judge" in a casual setting. Once the gatherings have unreservedly consented to submit a dispute to arbitration, a party can 't singularly withdraw from the discretion.