Guest post by Badrinath Srinivasan
ADR Prof Blog has a post on the interesting topic of ADR and Norm Creation. In that post, the blawger provides two rare examples of ADR in creating norms.
One of the complaints against ADR processes is that they undermine the rule or norm-creating role of adjudication. By taking disputes from the norm-creating sphere of public adjudication to private and confidential tribunals, the role of precedents and norm-creation are undermined. The problem is further complicated because the review of ADR decisions (in a generic sense of term), if any, are on the basis of possibility-standards and not on the basis of substantive correctness of the decision. We had discussed this issue in the sidelines while discussing the case of Sumitomo Heavy Industries v ONGC. There, we had commented:
"Though the SC's decision seems to be reasonable, it is sad that the court did not consider the law on the liability of a contractual party to bear increase in costs due to change of law during the currency of the contract. This is the problem with arbitration. The courts are forced to rule on whether the award was perverse or not rather than consider what should actually be the law on the issue. The main issue is taken outside the realm of the court. Essentially what the court has stated here is that Article 17.3 could either be narrowly construed like the Division Bench wanted it to be or broadly constructed as was done by the arbitrator. But what is the true law?"
