Revista da EMERJ - V. 21 - N. 3 - Setembro/Dezembro - 2019 - Tomo 1

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 3, t. 1, p. 72-86, set.-dez., 2019  74 TOMO 1 the (settlement of the) dispute. In this context, the only shared principle (besides independence and impartiality of the court, and the right to be heard) might be the key element of a common political culture, which places the rights of the individual at the centre of economic, social and legal activity. Placing the individual at the centre of the economic and legal system follows the principles of party autonomy and party disposition that shape dispute resolution methods. Accordingly, it is for the parties and not the government to choose suitable dispute resolution methods and to decide upon its commencement, scope and termination. One is confronted with two competing accounts of the role of civil justice. There is the older (or rather: classical) one, according to which European states, as polities embodying the rule of law, are committed to the principle that relationships among its citizens must be governed by the law and not by the survival of the fittest. Dispute resolution methods should also be governed by a system of public and private law fairly applied and evenly enforced. Since the government is involved as provider of dispute resolution services, the state justice system has a duty to implement public policies that go beyond the “pure and simple” resolution of the dispute. The first policy is to enable the parties to choose dispute resolution mechanisms in a way that is truly free and informed, removing various barriers to access to justice. Second, to apply the law on the occasion of a dispute is the primary purpose of the civil justice system. The resolution of the dispute is not only about protecting individual rights. Nor simply is it about restoring peace between the parties to a dispute. The determination and enforcement of rights leads to the ongoing development and improvement of the law itself. The law is preserved in judgments, and only judgments can develop the law. By contrast, a newer account of dispute resolution emerged in the great debates on ADR in the mid-1980’s in the United States and in the mid-1990’s in Europe, as well as the subsequent implementation of ADR programs on both sides of the Atlantic, which was an essential break with tradition in Western dispute resolution. Until then, settling a dispute through an out-of-court agreement or litigating the case before courts and seeking adjudication reflected the individual choice of the parties. After the large scale development of ADR schemes, the alternative between settlement and adjudication has become an institutional choice.