IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v69y1975i04p1200-1217_24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems in the Mobilization of Adjudication

Author

Listed:
  • Sarat, Austin
  • Grossman, Joel B.

Abstract

This article attempts to assess the role of courts and other adjudicative institutions in the definition, interpretation, and management of conflict. Understanding the function of courts requires an understanding of a society's entire range of conflict management mechanisms. Particular emphasis is placed on those variables most likely to determine where and how conflicts will be solved. Adjudicative institutions can be effectively differentiated by a typology which measures the level of formality in procedures and the degree of “publicness.” The structure of a dispute-resolving institution will have an important effect on which disputes are presented to it and how they are decided. The nature of the dispute, goals of the disputants, social context, and political culture are also important variables. Government has an important stake in the manner in which disputes arise and are resolved. It may promote or require the resolution of some disputes in the courts while allowing others to be resolved in less public and formal arenas. Formal litigation may provide a model for private dispute resolution. It may also absorb and deflect grievances before they escalate into more organized and intense demands on the political system. Finally, litigation may have an important effect on system stability by promoting support for regime values.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarat, Austin & Grossman, Joel B., 1975. "Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems in the Mobilization of Adjudication," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1200-1217, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:69:y:1975:i:04:p:1200-1217_24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400245000/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jensen, Jeffrey L. & Ramey, Adam J., 2020. "Going postal: State capacity and violent dispute resolution," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 779-796.
    2. Yasmi, Yurdi & Kelley, Lisa & Enters, Thomas, 2011. "Forest conflict in Asia and the role of collective action in its management:," CAPRi working papers 102, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:69:y:1975:i:04:p:1200-1217_24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.