Some people believe that the feasibility of alternative mechanisms for settling disputes (ADR); "of course mediation is one of these mechanisms", and their results do not measure up to what can be obtained from the judiciary, even if their appearance precedes that of the judiciary. However, the source of this attack and unwelcoming attitude stems from the deep-rooted view that the national judiciary is an authentic authority of the state and its function is to establish justice, protect rights, and redress grievances.
This is a function that individuals and institutions outside the judicial system cannot perform, otherwise chaos will prevail and the rights of the weak will be lost. This is how most people in those countries see the matter.
If we look at the reality of the 21st century, our perspective on the matter will be different. While some view alternative dispute resolution as a panacea, the necessities of the times permit us to accept it as an exception rather than a universal solution.
It is well-known that the rules and laws governing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) were created by developed countries, and multinational corporations have contributed to shaping their culture and principles based solely on their own interests, without considering the interests of developing countries as consumers. The alternative dispute resolution system is a mechanism of the new global system that is used to ensure the leadership and dominance of developed Northern countries, while maintaining the underdevelopment and subjugation of the South. This is a reality that we, the people of these developing countries, have participated in creating.
This leads us to ask whether we are at a crossroads, where attempting to generalize this system is intended to prevent national courts from hearing disputes and serves as a lifeline for global corporations to extend their control and protect themselves against the strict laws of Third World countries.