The idea is to divert certain cases from the formal, adversarial court system and reduce the court backlog of cases, save money, and improve citizensU access to justice. This movement is seen by some as an opportunity for individuals and communities to recover or assume a certain degree of control over the administration of justice in their own lives. Others have raised the criticism that it amounts to a high-tech way for the state to exert control over citizens. ADR seeks to breach misunderstanding rather than deal with power imbalances, and this limits the role of third parties to conducting discussion rather than providing insight into underlying issues. Where such imbalances occur, a neutral third party is necessarily an apologist for the status quo.
Discussion now centers around issues of professional standards and mediator certification.
Even the US Justice Dept calls ADR a movement of Ranxious professionals and unwilling participants,S probably because how-to issues of actually running dispute resolution programs have taken precedence over demands for social justice. According to the ADR advocates, if their processes fail it is because the disputants are uncooperative and not because the processes might be flawed. So, like formal law, it is embedded in individualism. This enhances the capacity for its use as social control by diverting attention to the grievance of the individual and away from criticism of social structures. Linked to this is the critique that ADR represents not so much an alternative to the courts as an alternative to community organizing and to politics itself, since it lacks organic connection to communities.