John Sturrock QC: Co-operation, not coercion

The concept of "blame" is a part of the adversarial culture, where, to be successful, we find fault. Litigation in this culture can breed polarisation and antagonism as parties seek to build their case and knock down that of the other side.

Research shows that most people would rather resolve their disputes by agreement. Many people who make claims against doctors, for example, do not want money at all but wish forms of redress not available in the court, such as an explanation, reassurance or apology.

The key issue is how to help people to resolve conflict in a way that avoids the stress, cost, delay and polarisation of litigation. Mediation, in which parties are given the opportunity to explain concerns and the responsibility for finding solutions through open communication, is usually quicker and can provide more creative solutions than litigation.

Of course, litigation should be used when absolutely necessary but only as a last resort and in those cases where it is vital that the courts preserve rights or provide protection, for example, against excessive abuse of power by the state.

But there is a broader picture. It is arguable that there are two parallel ideas tussling for predominance in the early part of the 21st century. The first, which has its roots in hierarchical systems, tends to rely on compulsion to assert rights and maintain power. In some settings this can result in litigation, in others in war.

The other approach recognises that disputes are much more complex than we often appreciate and that communication, even if we seriously disagree with others, is more likely to produce an outcome in which the interests of all are acknowledged.

For those of us who believe that the transformation from compulsion and coercion to co-operation and collaboration is vital, here is a real challenge.