09 Jun Methods or means of dispute resolution?

On June 3rd, the Barcelona Bar Association (ICAB) hosted the conference “Procedural requirement in housing matters: Analysis and effects of the Constitutional Court’s plenary judgment No. 26/2025.”

One point that caught my attention was a linguistic —but also conceptual— remark by the speaker Mr. Eugenio Martínez Caparrós: he prefers to speak of methods rather than means when referring to ADR (Appropriate Dispute Resolution methods) as mentioned in Organic Law 1/2025.

This distinction is not trivial.

🔹 “Means” may suggest a neutral tool, a mere instrument to reach an end.
🔹 “Method“, on the other hand, implies a structured and rational way of addressing an issue. Referring to methods highlights the variety of approaches and techniques —mediation, conciliation, negotiation, etc.— that offer their own value beyond serving as simple alternatives to litigation.

At a time when Organic Law 1/2025 promotes these mechanisms as procedural requirements in certain civil and commercial matters, rethinking how we name them is also a way to strengthen their identity and dignity.

Is it just a matter of wording? Maybe. Or maybe not quite.

What do you think? Means… or methods?