This July 4th week, it’s fitting to review how our national dispute resolution skills developed throughout history.

In 1793, Founding Father Benjamin Rush proposed a peace office for the country on equal footing with the Department of War. In the decades following several representatives and senators, including Everett Dirksen, Daniel Inouye, Edmund Muske, Ed Koch, and Dennis Kucinich, have introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace. Military veterans Mark Hatfield and Spark Matsunaga led Congress in the passage of the United States Institute Peace Act signed into law by President Reagan, which established an institute to promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts among nations and peoples.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) was formed under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 to provide mediation during labor disputes. Over the years the FMCS had several notable mediators as director, including Cyrus S. Ching, William E. Simkin, and W. J. “Bill” Usery. Today, FMCS mediators are also available to provide training on a variety of dispute resolution skills.

In the public sector, community mediation centers developed from two concerns. One was in response to growing dissatisfaction with the legal justice system and the other a product of the social activism of the 1960s. Today’s centers provide mediation in both the courts and the community, as well as mediation training.

In public schools, peer programs trained a limited amount of students in mediation skills. Additionally, a small number of colleges, universities and law schools began offering courses in mediation and conflict management.

John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, founder of Common Cause, and author wrote about conflict resolution in his book, “On Leadership.” He surmised we have an infinite capacity for disputes within our families, businesses, and goverments, suggesting that Conflict Resolution be a subject commonly taught in our schools.

I occasionally receive inquiries from people asking “what’s the difference” between mediation and another form of dispute resolution. At the risk of over simplification, these are the major differences I present:

In mediation, a neutral party facilitates communication and helps the disputing parties work out a mutually agreeable solution. What makes mediation different from other forms of dispute resolution is that it is the parties themselves who must develop the solution.

In arbitration, a third party reviews evidence, hears arguments, and renders a decision, which typically cannot be appealed. Various documentation can specify that any disputes under contract will be resolved by this process. Courts may also refer cases to arbitration.

In a settlement conference, parties meet with a neutral decision maker , typically a judge, to engage in negotiation. Settlement conferences can be voluntary or court ordered.

In neutral evaluation, disputing parties make presentations to a neutral individual who then offers a confidential evaluation of the dispute and may or may not assist the parties in negotiation.

In private judging, a non-judicial officer selected and compensated by the parties decides a case.

The next question is typically “which is best?” I tell people it depends on the parties, the nature of the dispute, where the parties are in the process, and most importantly, how much the disputing parties want to be involved themselves in making the final decision.