This article
investigates whether informal dispute settlement may promote a faster and more
efficient resolution of employment disputes in the United Nations (UN) reformed
administration of justice. Some scholars have pointed out that it is difficult
to answer this question without a benchmark. Accordingly, this article conducts
a comparative analysis of UN and European Union (EU) alternative dispute
resolution (‘ADR’) mechanisms for staff disputes. After describing how these
organizations’ internal judicial systems emerged, the first section argues that
structural deficiencies remain in the UN system and create an imbalance between
disputants, which prevents ADR from delivering its full potential. Despite the
limited available data regarding these organizations’ ADR practice, the second
section contends that the European Ombudsman, a mechanism of good governance
widely open to staff complainants, has legitimized ADR and led to durable
positive institutional outcomes. Ultimately, this comparative study allows to
draw both quantitative and qualitative findings to improve the UN system.