The famous saying "even if you win you lose", stands true in litigation.
​
Conflicts are inevitable owing to the increased globalisation in today's time and era. Commercial agreements are created almost every minute of every day, across the globe and across several cultures. Previously, courts were the main and the most used form of dispute resolution. However, due to changing times and the increased need for faster dispute resolution, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is becoming the most popular format for resolving conflicts. Lawsuits may quench the desire for vengeance for many, but it comes with an exorbitant cost in terms of time and money and is not often the best way to resolve conflict. Thus, with their advantages of being cheaper, faster, and amicable; negotiation and conciliation, mediation and arbitration, to name a few, are rapidly gaining popularity.
​
Countries have adopted new laws and policies to meet this increased demand for ADR. However, ADR laws are still a relatively new concept, compared to ancient judicial systems. ADR laws require a constant amendment to stay relevant. Not every country is on the same level of ‘upgrade’, many LEDCs still lack adequate legalisation and so, formalisation of ADR. They are deprived of basic infrastructure and awareness to thoroughly incorporate ADR. We envision ADR to be the dominant form of conflict resolution while still providing access to justice. ADR does have its flaws. It is arguably being commercialised to favour the rich or is interrupted by excessive judicial intervention, for example. Therefore, the ADR ODR Journal by King’s College’s Mediation Project is an opportunity to evaluate ADR policies globally, analyse their flaws and recommend academic solutions. The Journal aims to unite international scholarship under a common goal to revolutionise ADR.
 

Harshita Bajla 
Editor-in-Chief, Volume I