INTRODUCTION

Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) refers to any way of settling matters

without resorting to litigation that occurs outside court walls. All methods and
processes for resolving disputes that take place outside of a governmental
framework are gathered under the umbrella of ADR. The following are the most
well-known ADR techniques:

 Mediation

 Negotiation

 Conciliation

 Arbitration

one of the most fundamental methods of dispute resolution that is usually

overlooked in favour of arbitration and mediation. Although negotiation is always
used as the first stage in conflict resolution, arbitration, and mediation are the ADR
methods that are most well-known. That is not to say that negotiation is less known
or employed than the other approaches; on the contrary, when it comes to resolving
a conflict, it is always the first thing that people think of.

Form of ADR

Arbitration:

The process of arbitration can start only if there exists a valid Arbitration
Agreement between the parties prior to the emergence of the dispute. As per
Section 7, such an agreement must be in writing. The contract, regarding which the
dispute exists, must either contain an arbitration clause or must refer to a separate
document signed by the parties containing the arbitration agreement. The existence
of an arbitration agreement can also be inferred by written correspondence such as
letters, telex, or telegrams which provide a record of the agreement. An exchange
of statement of claim and defence in which existence of an arbitration agreement is
alleged by one party and not denied by other is also considered as valid written
arbitration agreement.

Any party to the dispute can start the process of appointing arbitrator and if the
other party does not cooperate, the party can approach the office of Chief Justice
for appointment of an arbitrator. There are only two grounds upon which a party
can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator – reasonable doubt in the
impartiality of the arbitrator and the lack of proper qualification of the arbitrator as
required by the arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator or panels of arbitrators so
appointed constitute the Arbitration Tribunal.

Except for some interim measures, there is very little scope for judicial
intervention in the arbitration process. The arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over
its own jurisdiction. Thus, if a party wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the
arbitration tribunal, it can do so only before the tribunal itself. If the tribunal rejects
the request, there is little the party can do accept to approach a court after the
tribunal makes an award. Section 34 provides certain grounds upon which a party
can appeal to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for setting aside the
award.

Once the period for filing an appeal for setting aside an award is over, or if such an
appeal is rejected, the award is binding on the parties and is considered as a decree
of the court.

Conciliation

Conciliation is a less formal form of arbitration. This process does not require an
existence of any prior agreement. Any party can request the other party to appoint
a conciliator. One conciliator is preferred but two or three are also allowed. In case
of multiple conciliators, all must act jointly. If a party rejects an offer to conciliate,
there can be no conciliation.

Parties may submit statements to the conciliator describing the general nature of
the dispute and the points at issue. Each party sends a copy of the statement to the
other. The conciliator may request further details, may ask to meet the parties, or
communicate with the parties orally or in writing. Parties may even submit
suggestions for the settlement of the dispute to the conciliator.

When it appears to the conciliator that elements of settlement exist, he may draw
up the terms of settlement and send it to the parties for their acceptance. If both the
parties sign the settlement document, it shall be final and binding on both.

Note that in USA, this process is similar to Mediation. However, in India,

Mediation is different from Conciliation and is a completely informal type of ADR
mechanism.

Mediation

Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or "appropriate dispute

resolution", aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement. The
parties themselves determine the conditions of any settlements reached— rather
than accepting something imposed by a third party. The disputes may involve (as
parties) states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives
with a vested interest in the outcome.

Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve

dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with
concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the
mediator as impartial.

Disputants may use mediation in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal,

diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.
A third-party representative may contract and mediate between (say) unions and
corporations. When a workers’ union goes on strike, a dispute takes place, and the
corporation hires a third party to intervene in attempt to settle a contract or
agreement between the union and the corporation.

Negotiation

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement

upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft
outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute
resolution.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches,

legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage,
divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation
theory. Those who work in negotiation professionally are called negotiators.
Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage
buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under
other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers

Lok Adalat:

“While Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fairly standard western

approach towards ADR, the Lok Adalat system constituted under National Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 is a uniquely Indian approach”.

It roughly means "People's court". India has had a long history of resolving
disputes through the mediation of village elders. The system of Lok Adalats is an
improvement on that and is based on Gandhian principles. This is a non-adversarial
system, where by mock courts (called Lok Adalats) are held by the State Authority,
District Auth[2]ority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal
Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee, periodically for
exercising such jurisdiction as they thinks fit. These are usually presided by retired
judge, social activists, or members of legal profession. It does not have jurisdiction
on matters related to non-compoundable offences.

There is no court fee and no rigid procedural requirement (i.e. no need to follow
process given by Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act), which makes the process
very fast. Parties can directly interact with the judge, which is not possible in
regular courts.

Cases that are pending in regular courts can be transferred to a Lok Adalat if both
the parties agree. A case can also be transferred to a Lok Adalat if one party
applies to the court and the court sees some chance of settlement after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the other party.

The focus in Lok Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the

matter goes back to the court. However, if a compromise is reached, an award is
made and is binding on the parties. It is enforced as a decree of a civil court. An
important aspect is that the award is final and cannot be appealed, not even under
Article 226 because it is a judgement by consent.

All proceedings of a Lok Adalat are deemed to be judicial proceedings and every
Lok Adalat is deemed to be a Civil Court.
Lok Adalat (people’s courts), established by the government, settles dispute
through conciliation and compromise. The First Lok Adalat was held in Chennai in
1986. Lok Adalat accepts the cases which could be settled by conciliation and
compromise and pending in the regular courts within their jurisdiction.

The Lok Adalat is presided over by a sitting or retired judicial officer as the
chairman, with two other members, usually a lawyer and a social worker. There is
no court fee. If the case is already filed in the regular court, the fee paid will be
refunded if the dispute is settled at the Lok Adalat. The procedural laws and the
Evidence Act are not strictly followed while assessing the merits of the claim by
the Lok Adalat.

Main condition of the Lok Adalat is that both parties in dispute should agree for
settlement. The decision of the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties to the dispute
and its order is capable of execution through legal process. No appeal lies against
the order of the Lok Adalat.

Lok Adalat is very effective in settlement of money claims. Disputes like partition
suits, damages and matrimonial cases can also be easily settled before Lok Adalat
as the scope for compromise through an approach of give and take is high in these
cases.
Mediation in India – Historical Analysis

In India, the law and practice of private and transactional commercial disputes
without court intervention can be dated back to ancient times. Arbitration or
mediation as an alternative to dispute resolution by municipal courts has been
prevalent in India from Vedic times.

 The earliest known treatise is the Bhradarnayaka Upanishad, in which

various types of arbitral bodies viz
 (i) the Puga
 (ii) the Sreni
 (iii) the Kula.
These arbitral bodies, known as Panchayats, dealt with variety of disputes, such as
disputes of contractual, matrimonial and even of a criminal nature. The disputants
would ordinarily accept the decision of the panchayat and hence a settlement
arrived consequent to conciliation by the panchayat would be as binding as the
decision that was on clear legal obligations.

Principles of the mediation

Every process of ADR mechanism has its own basic principles on which it’s work
and giving positive outcomes. Like as other process mediation has its own
fundamental principles which are helpful in settling disputes between the parties on
their mutual consensus. Parties choose mediation process over litigation may be
because of these principles which have given effective way to the process.
Mediation usually has seen in the family matters or any neighboring issues which
could be resolve by mediation process rather than go to court for justice.

In generally there are 5 basic principles usually seen in the mediation process and
it should be followed strictly by the mediator as well as the parties for an effective
outcome. Five basic principles of mediation process are as follows:-

Parties should participate voluntarily

It is necessary that no one should forced to mediate, it should be in the hands of

parties and they have to decide whether they want to mediate or go to the courts.
Parties have their voluntary participation in the mediation process. it is going to be
more fruitful.

People will cooperate more fully if they know they are free to leave at any point.
This engages their own free will and sense of purpose and enables them to drive
the process towards agreement rather than to be led to an understanding by a third
party. If they drive the process they are more committed to the outcome.

Confidentiality matters in the process

Within the mediation itself the mediator must not divulge any confidences that are
shared with them unless given permission to do so. Unless someone shares a
criminal intent or act that involves harm to self or other.

 In respect of further proceedings (except with the express permission of

both sides)
 In order for people to feel safe to explore their fears and anxieties the
process must be perceived to be entirely confidential.
All the information given in the mediation shall be kept confidential and it cannot
be used in the court proceedings neither by the mediators nor court can ask why the
mediation did not work.

Mediators are impartial

The mediator must act impartially and neutrally. He/she should observe all
principles of mediation and consider only matters of procedure. He/she should not
comment, value judgments, nor give advice or suggesting solutions. Impartiality of
a mediator should ensure that the parties accept him/her as a person who is
sincerely dedicated to resolving the dispute and who favors both sides in the
dispute, seeking solutions that would satisfy both sides in the dispute. The
mediator must keep in mind that his/her behavior, attitude, and sometimes the
techniques of mediation can bring a sense of sympathy towards one side. When
that happens, then the mediation went the wrong way. The mediator cannot
perform the function if there are circumstances that indicate doubts about his
impartiality and objectivity.

An agreement has to be settled with the satisfaction of parties concerned

The responsibility for defining the problem, setting the agenda and agreeing the
solution rests with the people in the dispute. The mediation procedure can be
started only if there is an agreement between the parties. Mediation will not be
started without both parties intending to resolve the dispute. In such cases,
mediation is misused only as a mean of withholding the court process and keeping
the situation at the “status quo”.

A mediator needs to know how to explain the advantages of such dispute

resolution to the parties, so that they themselves voluntarily agree to be part of
such process. The parties should be informed on the possibility to interrupt the
mediation process at any stage, if they express need for such. The principle of
willingness applies at all stages of the proceedings. A party or the mediator may at
any time withdraw and then transfer the case to the judge.

A mediator can interrupt mediation if he/she feels that parties turn away from the
solution or that are even more opposed than they were at the start of mediation.
The basic principle in the process of mediation is that the mediation procedure
should not harm the parties in any way, but to contribute to the resolution of their
dispute.

Given that mediation is only a supplement to the court proceedings, it must not
prevent a party from exercising the right of access to court and use of judicial
protection.

Mediation is without prejudice to other procedures

It is important that people reserve the right to invoke other measures. If the
mediation were seen as an enforced procedure or one that removes an individual’s
rights it would constrict the creativity and increases the potential for resistance.

Is mediation an effective ADR mechanism or not?

The use of the term “mediation” is well known in International Law. It is the
technical term in International Law which signifies the interposition by a neutral
and friendly state between two States at war or on the eve of war with each other,
of its good offices to restore or to preserve peace. The term is sometimes as a
synonym for intervention, but mediation differs from it in being purely a friendly
act.
Mediation at one level of perception is a means of avoiding the pitfalls of
litigation. The problems which arise in the resolution of disputes through litigation
are well known.

These are, broadly

 (i) delay
 (ii) expense
 (iii) rigidity of procedures and
 (iv) a reduction in the participatory role of parties
In the path of resolving these pitfalls of litigation, mediation is the most frequently
adopted ADR procedure.

The process of mediation may have to pass through several stages such as :-

 opening statement
 opening statement to the parties
 summarizing and agenda setting.
 exploration of issues.
 private sessions or caucuses
 joint negotiation session
 agreement
Practitioners in this field adopt their own perfected styles. They differ in their basic
steps. A lot depends upon the nature of the dispute. The more complicated a
matter, the more private meetings would be necessary to pave the ground for a
joint meeting.

A mediator may adopt either a facilitative or evaluative approach. Mediators try to

avoid opinions and judgments. They rather facilitate and encourage parties to open
up their communications and disclose their interests and priorities. In this process
the mediator gets the opportunity of locating the points of difference and the area
of controversy or dispute. He may then help the parties to bridge the gap between
them.
 The essence of mediation lies in the role of the mediator as a facilitator. The
mediator is not an adjudicator. Unlike the Judge in a traditional Court setting or for
that matter even an arbitrator, the mediator is neither an adjudicator of facts nor an
arbiter of disputes. The role of the mediator is to create an environment in which
parties before him are facilitated towards resolving the dispute in a purely
voluntary settlement or agreement.

The mediator is a neutral. The neutrality of the mediator is akin to the neutrality of
a Judge but the role of the mediator is completely different from that of a Judge.
The mediator does not either deliver judgment or dictate to the parties the terms of
the agreement.

Mediation is an effective ADR mechanism can be seen by these 4 benefits of the

process such as

1. Informality – No court rules or legal precedents are involved in

mediation. The mediator does not impose a decision upon the parties. As
opposed to adversarial forums, the mediator helps to maintain a business
like approach to resolving a dispute. There are no fixed solutions in
mediation. Parties can look to developing creative solutions to resolve
matters and the solution rests with the parties themselves.

2. Privacy and confidentiality – The mediation conference takes place in a

private setting such as a conference room at any of the Arbitration
Associations. Mediation is not a matter of public record. Its
confidentiality is maintained.

3. Time and cost savings – Mediation generally lasts a day. Complex

matters may require more time due to highly technical issue and/ or
multiple parties. Without the formalities found in litigation, mediation
usually results in substantial costs savings.

4. Control – Parties have control over their participation in mediation. A

party can decide to terminate their participation at any point in mediation.
Mediators help parties maintain control over the negotiation that takes
place

Implementation strategies
For an effective implementation, there is always a need of strategies and policies.
Mediation process is frequently used by the public but there is lack of
implementation. More mediation centres have to be set up by High courts and
particular sect of cases should be giving to the mediation by courts.

The development of mediation as a viable alternative to litigation is still in the

incipient stages in India. Mediation centre’s have recently been set up by a few
industry and trade associations. Similarly, professional lawyers have in certain
isolated instances attempted to develop into fullfledged professionals with
expertise in mediation. These instances are, however, sporadic and the overall
potential of mediation still remains to be explored. Strategies for successful
implementation of mediation must, be carefully assessed and a conscious effort has
to be made towards the evolution of a process that will be acceptable to the society
at large. In achieving a high level of acceptability for the mediation process,
several issues need be focused upon and these include:

(i) Developing awareness;

(ii) Advocacy;

(iii) Building capacities;

(iv) The creation of an institutional framework; and

(v) Actual implementation.

It is more facilitative for the development of law to approach preventive process

unlike litigation oriented approaches only. Above all, confidence in the mediation
process will be fostered only if the mediator discharges in positive terms the ethical
concerns of a process to which the role of the mediator is central.
WHAT IS NEGOTIATION?

Negotiate is derived from the Latin negōtiārī, which means “to carry on business,”
and the term carries the same meaning. The definition that is recognized in today’s
society is “discussion aimed at reaching an agreement”.

Negotiation has been characterized as the “preeminent mode of dispute resolution”.

Negotiation is a conversation between two parties to resolve disagreements or
problems such that both sides are happy with the outcome. Typically, a
compromise involves both giving and taking something. When both parties are
willing to make concessions in order to end a dispute amicably, negotiation is the
reason they are doing so. Everywhere you look, you may see negotiations taking
place. For example, while purchasing fruits and vegetables from a seller, you might
haggle for a good deal, or at work, negotiations can happen between management
and an employee, etc. In the legal context, negotiation is the simplest method to
settle disputes because compared to mediation and arbitration it is less formal and
allows both parties to put forward their views and opinions. Personal situations
such as marriage, divorce, and parenting, as well as professional and governmental
ones such as international trade and international law, all demand some level of
negotiation.

In the case of Harsh Gopal Khandelwal v. Aarti Khandelwal the court advised
both parties to engage in discussion if it was certain that there would be no conflict
between them. It was stated that the parties were free to continue in line with the
law if the negotiations produced no results.

HISTORY OF NEGOTIATION

Since the beginning of human evolution in the civilized world, negotiation has
proven to be a great tactic to deal with problems in every aspect of life. The
evolution of the human brain has included an increase in the usage of negotiation
processes, which has led to an expansion in the size of the brain itself.

Although they are sometimes mistaken for one another, the processes of
negotiation and mediation are each distinct in their own right. This is due to the
fact that mediation employs bargaining techniques, often with the assistance of a
third party known as a negotiator or mediator. The term “negotiator” also refers to
trained mediators.

In contemporary times, negotiation has its presence in the Indian legal system but
it has not been given legalization. There is no formal legal framework, or
legislative recognition, for negotiation. Although the Enron case could be the most
well-known negotiating case study in India. Energy tycoon Enron, located in the
US, was in negotiations with the Indian government about expanding to
Maharashtra. It is regarded as an important case study.

CHARACTERISTICS OF NEGOTIATION

 Informal

 Voluntary

 Multilateral/Bilateral

 Flexible

TYPES OF NEGOTIATION

 DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION: When two parties bargain about a

particular item or topic, like pricing, it’s known as distributive bargaining.
For instance, haggling over the cost of a fruit or vegetable with the street
seller. In the end, one party—the buyer or the seller—must concede defeat
and purchase or sell the product at a reduced rate. It is more competitive than
other techniques because it leads to a win-lose situation. This type of
strategy can be seen in the case of Delhi Jal Board vs Grasim Industries Ltd.
& Others[2], In this case, both parties were negotiating on the bid price. The
Informant alleged that in negotiation over the bid price, all the Opposite
Parties used to decide as to how much amount is to be decreased or
negotiated from the bid/ quoted price.

 MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATION: This type of negotiation method includes

3 or more parties. Three or more parties engage in diverse negotiating
methods to hammer home their ideas throughout the multiparty negotiation
 process. For example, four friends debate which movie to watch on Movie
Friday.

 INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION: It is a sort of negotiation in which more

than one problem must be resolved through the negotiation process. Both
parties benefit from the negotiation. A win-win outcome is ensured via an
integrative negotiation process. Often in this type of negotiation, both parties
aim for mutual gains.

CONCEPT OF MIXED MOTIVE EXCHANGE

Negotiation is an interchange of ambiguous motives. Both sides’ intentions get

muddled and suggested to be traded. Interests are aggregated and handled as a
group. The value is shared, and before that, new values are generated. First, the
disputing parties must understand each other, the problem, and their ultimate goals
before sitting together to work out a solution that maximizes advantages.
Qualities of Negotiator

SKILLS NEEDED IN NEGOTIATION

A skilled negotiator will know how to use all of the skills listed below to his
advantage. Although in order for these skills to be efficient they are needed to be
practiced regularly.

 COMMUNICATION: The thing that works like a basic tool, a backbone to

negotiation is communication. The negotiation’s outcome is determined by
the manner you communicate. It entails recognizing nonverbal clues,
choosing the appropriate words, and articulating your ideas in a captivating
and interesting manner. It is also said that a great negotiator should use
simple language, in other words, not too verbose. An effective negotiation
ensures that each party leaves somewhat satisfied and the situation turns into
a win-win one.

 PLANNING: Planning effectively before the negotiation guarantees that you

are aware of the long-term effects and consequences your choice of words
can have on the negotiation conditions. Planning is helpful during the
negotiation process and assures that the decision will be carried out
successfully.

 LISTENING: A good negotiator is also a good listener. It is essential that a

negotiator listens with full attention to know what the other party is trying to
achieve. You also need to keep an eye on vocal inflections, body language,
tone of voice, etc. to read between the lines. Also, with active listening, you
don’t miss out on important information, which creates trust and speeds up
the process of reaching a consensus.

 STRATEGISING: A good negotiator always has a strategy which they

follow throughout the negotiation session to reach an agreement. There may
be times when the other person does not agree with the solution you
propose. Good negotiators frequently have one or more backup plans. You
should try to imagine all the possible outcomes of the negotiation process.
  PERSUASION: Successful negotiators have the ability to influence other
parties. It is tough to justify how your proposal would benefit both parties
unless you have strong persuasive abilities. Your ability to persuade the
other person will determine whether or not they agree to your proposal.

 EI / EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: What distinguishes a good negotiator

from a bad one is their ability to cope with the other party’s emotions as well
as keep themselves in check. They need to know how to manage emotions
such as anger and sadness. People with high emotional intelligence (EI) can
properly sense and communicate their emotions, as well as recognize and
utilize the emotions of others to promote solutions.

ADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATION

 Since only those parties with an interest in the subject and their
representatives, if any, are involved in a negotiation, it is perhaps the most
flexible method of resolving disputes. The parties are allowed to set the
terms of the discussions as they see fit. This allows for increased willingness
by both parties to sit down to talk civilly and reach a consensus.

 There is no requirement to use a third-party neutral in negotiations, unlike in

mediation where having a mediator is crucial.

 Negotiation will provide the parties with the chance to create an agreement
that reflects their interests, supposing that they are bargaining in good faith.

 Negotiation in some cases may lead to an improved relationship between the

two parties.

 Negotiation is less costly than litigation and also requires less time to settle
disputes.

DISADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATION

 A thorough grasp of each party’s negotiating mandate is necessary for a

negotiation to be effective. A party won’t be able to contribute effectively to
the negotiation process if there is doubt about the scope of their negotiating
power.
  The lack of a third party is regarded as advantageous, but it might also be a
disadvantage. This is because of the possibility of the two parties being
entangled in dreadlocks if they are too obstinate.

 Since negotiation is a voluntary process nobody can stop one party from
leaving. No party can be compelled to continue negotiating.

 The fairness or reliability of any party cannot be guaranteed via the

negotiating process.

CONCLUSION

According to an NDTV report, there are 59, 87,477 cases pending in high courts
across the country, and total pending cases amounting to 4,92,67,373 or over 4.92
crore, as per the information available on National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) on
February 1, 2023. This is a concerning number, our judicial system is
overburdened. This is why it becomes important to employ other dispute resolution
methods such as negotiation to settle matters. Every human being negotiates at
some point in his or her life, on some matter or another, some more effectively
than others. And I can say with certainty that negotiation has played a significant
role in the advancement of humanity because there would not have been enough
peace without it, for individuals to be able to do things. Negotiation has produced
the best results of any conflict management strategy. This is due to the fact that it is
the most practical and adaptable method for resolving conflicts and interpersonal
differences. In this day and age, we should educate more people about the
effectiveness of negotiation in resolving legal issues as people still hesitate before
turning to negotiation as they fear they have to compromise. This has to be
rectified which can only be done with awareness programs
Characteristics Of Negotiation Process:

Voluntary:

Process of negotiation is conducted through free consent of parties. No party is

forced to participate in the process. The outcome of negotiation can be freely
accepted or rejected at the will of parties. Also, at any point of process it can be
withdrawn. The parties can directly negotiate or they may choose anyone to be
represented.

Bilateral/ Multilateral:

The process of negotiation can involve two or more parties. The parties can range
from two individuals seeking to agree on sale of house to negotiation involving
diplomate from dozens of States.

Non-Adjudicative:

Negotiation is an informal process which only involve the parties. The outcome is
amicable reached by the parties together without any records to a third party
through mutual understanding.

Informal:

Unlike arbitration negotiation is an informal process which has no prescribed rules

and regulations. The parties get a free will to adopt whatever rules they choose if
any. Generally, the parties agree on the issues such as the subject matter timing and
location for the process. Other rules may include metals such as confidentiality
number of negotiating sessions and which documents may be used can be
addressed.
Flexible:

The scope of negotiation is dependent upon the choice of parties where determine
not only the topic which will be the subject matter of negotiation but also if they
will adopt a positional based bargaining approach or interest-based approach.

Stages Of Negotiation (Process)

Each negotiation has its own unique characteristics. Therefore, there is no such
uniform and exclusive method of negotiation and bargaining session.

A structured approach has to be followed in order to come at a desired outcome.

Therefore, various steps have to be followed in the negotiation process so that the
parties with conflicting ideas and differences reach to an amicable solution.

The process includes following stages:

1. Preparation
2. Discussion
3. Clarification of goals
4. Negotiate towards a Win-Win outcome
5. Agreement
6. Implementation of course of action

Preparation/ Initial Assessment

The process of negotiation begins with the signal of communication from one party
to the other showing a willingness to bargain. As negotiation is a voluntary process
it is of primary importance to know that whether the other party is interested in
negotiation or not.

Some of the important factors should be ensured before moving on. They are:

if there is desire to resolve the dispute

the credibility of other parties

the willingness of parties to preserve or establish the relationship

whether there is disparity between the parties that it would be impossible to

bargain equal or not

desirability of using any other form of dispute resolution system.

This stage involves ensuring the important facts of the dispute and its situation in
order to clarify the position of both the parties. Before any negotiation takes place,
a decision shall be taken as to when and where the meeting for negotiation shall
happen and as to who will attend the discussion and negotiation sessions. During
this time setting of a limited timescale can help prevent this agreement continuing.

Discussions

Once it has been established that negotiation is the appropriate course of action the
further arrangement shall be made in that course with the other party included. The
arrangement must include:

outlining the scope of negotiation

forming a time table as to whether or not that will be a fixed duration of

negotiation

ensuring that all the interested parties are identified and have been consulted
choosing a location Which is feasible to both the parties.

During this stage the parties of other side put forth their case as they see it and try
to understand the vice-versa situation. Clarification as to misunderstandings and
disagreements shall be spoken and heard. An equal opportunity shall be granted to
both the side.

Clarification Of Goals

From the second stage of discussion whatever goes interest and viewpoints of the
parties of this agreement needs to be clarified. To clarification it becomes easy and
possible to identify and establish a common ground post settlement. Clarification is
one of the crucial parts of negotiation process is without a doubt the
misunderstanding and disagreements are likely to continue which main result to
cause problems and barrier in reaching a beneficial outcome.

This can lead to harmonizing and Reconcile the bearing and competing interest of
the parties.

Negotiating Towards A Win-Win Situation

It is not always possible to reach to a Win-Win situation but it shall be the ultimate
goal. this stage focuses on which can be termed as Win-Win outcome wherein both
the parties may have the satisfaction that they have gained something positive
through the process and both the parties may feel that their point has been
considered.

Agreement

A proper agreement can be achieved only when both the parties understand each
other�s point of view and interest are considered simultaneously. Every member
involved in the negotiation process it is essential to keep an open mind so that an
acceptable solution can be reached full stop such agreement needs to be clearly
communicated so that no for the dispute can occur.