Africa and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes Sunday, Sep 23 2012 


Africa, as a continent has always resolved its disputes using alternative dispute resolution processes. This has been the norm, even before the formalisation of ADR at the Pound conference in 1976.  ADR has been part of the traditional communities, from negotiation, to mediation and conciliation. The traditional African community had minimal knowledge of resolution of disputes via the law courts, until the influx of western education.

In these communities, such as Nigeria and Ghana, the elders resolved disputes because of the notion, that they were the main people who were capable of resolving disputes.

As a paternalistic society, fathers and male elders determined how the communities were governed. In some cases, traditional rulers, usually a male member usually resolved disputes among its people. Due to the fact, the eldest male members of the communities were held in high esteem as well as revered. There rulings were seen as the final verdict, not subject to appeal. The traditional society in most countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa maximised the influence of the elder(s) and sometimes traditional rulers in decision-making, and at the end these communities where peaceful places to live in.

In traditional African communities, disputes were usually minor matters, although in exceptional cases, serious matters such as murder did arise and in such situations the elder or traditional ruler had to give a ruling .The beauty of the resolution of disputes by the elder(s), is based on the concept that the elder(s) know it all. In most circumstances, these assertions were proven correct. A Nigerian proverb which illustrates the power of elders in the African dispute resolution process is one that states ”what an elderly person sees seating down; a youngster is unable to see the same thing even upon climbing a tree”. For this reason, words from elders were respected because it was believed, they have seen it all and nothing is new to them.

In some aspects, the assertion that the African elder(s) know it all, in the dispute resolution process can be questionable. In some regards, this can be incorrect solely because it is only possible that the elder(s) or traditional ruler knows all that pertains to their area of experience and expertise, but to allude to the notion they know it all is simply incorrect.

The elders have been effective and efficient on the resolution of disputes in traditional African communities. Majority of disputes in the African communities were based on land and family disputes. Land was seen as the main influence of economic growth and human development. A significant number of men and women earned their living from the land, from tilling the land as farmers, to animal rearing. As the elders were seen as custodians of land, they were better placed to determine such disputes. On the other hand, family disputes were mainly based on number of women a man was married to, and some cases the legitimate and illegitimate children of a man. In these areas mentioned, it will be justifiable to say the elder(s) were the best custodians of justice in the dispute resolution process.

As the laissez-faire societies grew in size and complexity, the concept of impartiality in the dispute resolution process began to undergo a radical transformation in the traditional African communities. Notably, in communities were the powers of the Clan system became a big challenge. Especially, in a situation a disputant came from one Clan different from the other disputant. In such circumstances, the issue of impartial decision by the deciding elder(s) became one that was seen as controversial.

As a result, the law courts became imperative to have in the African communities. Purely because independence of the judge, for which impartiality is more or less guaranteed usually known as the hallmark of the court system, was seen as a mandatory requirement in any society. This concept of impartiality was seen as lacking in the traditional African communities; regardless of the fact a fair and just society was evident everywhere in those communities. Although, the elder(s) always promised to guarantee impartiality in the dispute resolution process, the law courts worked on the premise ” justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”. How do you explain to a disputant from a Clan, other than where the elder(s) is from, that the other disputant from the same Clan with the elder(s) will get justice in the dispute resolution process?

ADR is not new to Africa….

Concept of alternative dispute resolution and online dispute resolution Thursday, Sep 20 2012 


The continuous movement of people, goods and services have been hailed as the hallmark of the modern times. One embraced and encouraged by both public and private sectors of the society.

The flexibility ADR and ODR in resolving disputes cannot be underestimated, simply because of its universal acceptance, and cost effectiveness.

ADR deals with resolving disputes, purely to avoid litigation; while ODR is the use of processes and techniques in the resolution of disputes using information technology. ODR in recent years identifies mostly with consumer disputes in the form of e-commerce.

ADR relies on face to face contact for the resolution of disputes, while ODR relies obviously on internet-technology tools.

In view of the similarities  seen in ADR and ODR in the resolution of disputes, it comes as no surprise that these form of dispute resolution are both gaining momentum in both developed and developing countries. ADR is an accepted well established technique in the resolution of disputes. ODR, on the other hand represents the use of ADR processes and information technology. This is in the reliance in technology, usually the internet.

ODR has been instrumental in the resolution of consumer disputes within the private sector, though yet to be endorsed as a form of practice by mainstream governmental bodies. Major private institutions such as eBay, PayPal have both become pace setters of ODR in the resolution of disputes This is with an acclaimed use of the ODR systems in the resolution of consumer disputes in an upscale of over 60 million disputes annually.

Surprisingly, ODR remains a procedure that has failed to keep pace with the rapid growth in e-commerce. Interestingly, within Europe e-commerce’s growth has not impressed technology enthusiasts. Within Europe, where e-commerce growth has lagged behind, compared to some other regions 50% in UK, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands reportedly bought goods or services over the Internet in 2011. However, in previous year 2010, only 5% of European consumers used any ADR process to resolve a dispute. In 2011, there was an increase in the use of ADR processes for the resolution, which has been seen as the rise in awareness and acceptability.

Similarly, only 9% of businesses reported ever using ADR.  This onward growth of ADR has had an impact on ODR. This has continued despite the fact that ODR represents an easy, affordable and simple way to resolve disputes that arise out of online transactions.  For consumers, ODR can provide redress for problems that come up when litigation is not a viable option. For consumers, it will definitely increase trust, improve reputation and allow for rapid and fair handling of complaints, unpaid invoices and other unwelcome business distractions.

ODR is the new frontier in dispute resolution in an internet age.

Do you think like I do, ODR has its place in the dispute resolution process?

Absence of jurisdiction in online dispute resolution (ODR) Thursday, Aug 16 2012 


The Hague convention was drawn on the same lines as the Brussels 1 Regulation. It is remarkably similar to Brussels 1 Regulation, for it states guidelines on jurisdictional agreements. This includes the application of general and specifics on jurisdiction agreements which are closely identical to The Brussels 1 Regulation[1].  Courts are reluctant to state when another court acts improperly based on political, religious, racial or regional grounds, unless there is an obvious derogation from the requirement of the jurisdiction. Instances where a claimant is suspected to have had an unfair trial regardless of the jurisdiction, the expected effect would be to have a fair trial, possibly in the same jurisdiction or another jurisdiction mutually agreed by the concerned parties subject to the provisions of the law[2]

The Hague convention does provide for exclusivity of jurisdictional agreements, which presupposes there must be two or more parties for a valid jurisdiction to be effective[3].  Its provision on jurisdictional agreement is based on the standing that there would be a recognition and enforcement of a judgment in an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, and this will have the recognition and enforcement in other member states since there are no grounds for the refusal as required in the convention.[4]

The Hague Convention is a mechanism provided to ease obtaining evidence abroad. The challenges in resolving disputes through jurisdictional agreements are evident in the fact, that certain disputes are exclusively reserved for the jurisdiction of national courts and not arbitration tribunals.  From all the evaluations it is evident there is no uniform international law in the enforcement of foreign judgments in commercial litigation. However, there is neither a universal law in the enforcement of foreign judgments in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and online dispute resolution (ODR), fortunately, it guarantees accessibility, simplicity and effectiveness in its usage.

Interestingly, over a 100 million disputes are filed online each year around the world. This numbers have been on the increase and recent statistics shows the increase will continue. As our society becomes increasingly wired, internet users expect maximum utilisation of technology seen in various spheres of life. Also an expectation that they will use the latest information and communication technologies to get their issues resolved as quickly and efficiently, as possible. Unfortunately the default channel for resolving most problems, which is normally the use of litigation through the courts, are unable to deal with online, high volume, low value cases [5].

Governments and international institutions through their research have concluded that Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is the best option for providing fair redress for these online cases. Several (including UNCITRAL and the European Union) have recently announced plans to launch cross-border ODR schemes. Although, there has been a couple of challenges on an emerging concept many crucial details are yet to be addressed: How can fairness be ensured? Who should act as the decision makers? Should outcomes be binding? How can these systems benefit the developing world? Fortunately, some of these challenges are being dealt with through governmental legislations.

In the European Union, Article 17 of the E-Commerce Directive provides in online dispute resolution ‘member states shall ensure that,in the event of disagreement between an information society service provider and the recipient of the service, their legislation does not hamper the use of out-of-court schemes, available under national law, for dispute settlement, including appropriate electronic means’.

The attraction of ODR is not just its accessibility in the wired society we live in. Rather, it is the  convenience and effectiveness it offers. Since it is something that can be incorporated into agreements or contracts in the bid to build trust among users. Worldwide confidence in ODR usage is on the increase. Most importantly the interest shown and seen in developing countries in the use of ODR in the resolution of disputes has been phenomenal. The maintenance of  trust is an extremely essential requirement in establishing a universal online dispute resolution platform.

What concerns do you have in the use of online dispute resolution(ODR) in the resolution of disputes?

[1] International Commercial Litigation-Trevor Hartley P.202

[2] ‘The Eleftheria’ High Court [1970] P.94

[3] Chapter 1 Article 3 The Hague Convention

[4] Chapter 2 Article 8 The Hague Convention

[ 5] Graham Ross, Modria Europe

 

Forum shopping in commercial litigation Saturday, Aug 11 2012 


International judgment recognition is the determination of rights and obligations made by another court other than the court of origin. Parties involved in contractual relationship in International commercial transactions are often preoccupied with ascertaining whether their judgment would be granted International recognition.  Recognition on the other hand determines the acknowledgment of rights; therefore recognition is fundamental and it precedes enforcement.

This desire leads to careful choice-of-court agreement which invariably depends on choice-of-law chosen by parties.[1] A judgment given in a member state is expected to be recognised in other member states without any special procedure being required. The need to have judgments legitimacy and recognition both within the State of origin and internationally is profound that parties strive to act within the guidelines of international law[2].

 Significant issues in International dispute resolution and some recommendations is the Discontinuance with Forum shopping in international commercial litigation

Forum shopping is a common law procedure which occurs when a party seeks to by-pass his natural forum and seeks to bring his action in some alien forum. Solely because of the perceived relief or benefits which would not necessarily be available to him in his natural forum.[3]  This analysis though helpful, does not give a precise description of what forum shopping really means. This is because there remains an unresolved question on what really is meant by the word natural forum, the benefit to the plaintiff and reasons for bypassing the natural forum. Natural forum has been held  by the court  as the forum that is seemingly closely connected to the dispute,[4]thus the jurisdiction with which the dispute has the closest connection  is the natural forum for the disputes while the jurisdiction that has no substantial connection with the dispute may be regarded as a foreign forum.[5]

The complexities of forum shopping are ever so present in international commercial litigation and may operate to deny parties the much expected benefits of international commercial trade.  However Forum shopping is not just about exploiting the anarchy of different jurisdictional rules. Instead it is equally possible within the context of a treaty-based regime, such as the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.[6] Natural forum has been used to describe the place that is advantageous to the party[7] to resolve the dispute, thus the forum which is convenient to witnesses may be a major consideration in determining the natural forum of the dispute. An appropriate forum is always effective and should be considered for both parties.[8]Forum shopping has been abused in systems considered attractive by litigants because of the ‘greater income’ to practitioners.


Forum shopping is evident in commercial litigation,which is unavoidable. In ODR,forum shopping is non-existent. Do you think this makes ODR attractive to disputants?

 

[1] Article 33 (1) of the Brussels 1 Regulation

[2] Chapter 111 Article 8 (3) of the Hague Convention

[3] Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356,401

[4] JJ.Fawcett,Forum shopping Some Questions Answered 1984 35 N IRLEGAL Q 141 AT P.141

[5] JJ.Fawcett,Forum shopping Some Questions Answered 1984 35 N IRLEGAL Q 141 AT P.141

[6] Third interim report on Declining & referring jurisdiction in International jurisdiction at International Law Association

London Conference (2000)

[7] MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd [1978] AC 795 at p.812

[8] Owusu v Jackson[2005]ECR 1-1383

Clear and unmistakable role of online dispute resolution in the dispute process Saturday, Jul 21 2012 


The current online dispute resolution law is fairly complicated. However, this complication is purely on the ground there isn’t any universal consensus in the ideal method of operation, for the resolution of disputes online. For this reason, cases that do not address the technological state of things in the judicial process globally, fall short of the fast-paced expectations of vast majority of the population. Instead, what we see now in the resolution of disputes online, are inadequacies of dispute resolution in a forward – looking world, which are being addressed by various  platforms such Modria.

Interestingly, there has been significant support for a new EU ODR framework amongst ”many stakeholders”. Whilst there has been support, some have voiced their reservations stating that ODR framework would act as a catalyst for consumers to use the conventional ADR mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, and not the resolution of disputes online. However, if consumers opt for the ADR conventional means in the resolution of disputes, as opposed to the use of ODR platforms which is the sole objective of ODR, this invariably will defeat the sole objective of ODR as a form of dispute resolution.

Recently, the UK government agreed with stakeholders, that the notion ODR may not be entirely clear to consumers, thereby offering limited benefits to its users. In order to avoid confusion and mislead consumers, the UK government sought the European Commission for extensive clarifications on grey areas on the immense benefits of ODR.  Accordingly, in a communique “The UK Government will seek an agreement from other Member States to amendments to enable the proposals to deliver real benefits whilst reducing the risk of consumer confusion and unnecessary costs.”

In December 2011, there was a proposal by the European Commission for an online dispute resolution platform which would be free, through which traders and consumers alike can easily resolve disputes that occur over online transactions.  Under the proposed scheme, either the traders or consumers could submit their complainants to the online dispute resolution platform, which will be determined by the relevant body within a 30 day period.

Many stakeholders were happy with this proposal, and hailed it as an indication of the triumph and acknowledgement of online dispute resolution in the dispute process.

The UK government promised to ensure respect for the EU proposals, and at the same time make sure that it does not stop schemes in place in the UK from forging an appropriate ODR platform. More so, where businesses are expected to use certain ADR providers in the resolution of disputes,there would be an encouragement, and at the same time a suggestion for the use of an ODR platform even when the grievance is from a consumer in another Member State.

The EU ODR platform will help in the resolution of disputes, with regards to cross-border online sale of goods and provision of services from e-commerce transactions. Consumers are encouraged to submit their complaints in their own language. This thankfully is free of charge. However, the ODR process may require some payment, for which two ODR facilitators per Member State will be assigned to the European Consumer Centres to assist parties with technical and language support, more like a technical support team.

With all these proposals and schemes in place, it definitely shows the direction of online dispute resolution in the dispute resolution process. One which is unmistakably important, faster, and useful today.

 

Does the resolution of your disputes/conflicts online sound feasible?

 

 

Parties power in dispute resolution Tuesday, Jul 17 2012 


The power of the parties to appoint a neutral in the resolution of a dispute is of immense importance. This could be in an arbitration, mediation, negotiation or other hybrid forms of alternative dispute resolution.  A good example is international arbitration, where the appointment of the arbitrator forms one of the cornerstones of a successful arbitration.

Parties, usually take the responsibility to appoint a neutral, whether it is a lawyer or arbitrator, or mediator or negotiator seriously. Mainly because various factors are normally considered in the appointment of a neutral from cultural factors, to personal needs as well as jurisdictional provisions. An understanding of the cultural and political factors of a particular neutral, always helps parties determine who they decide to appoint, either individually or collectively.

London has a proven track record in arbitration as a sought after seat. This is together with its renowned legal practitioners who are  notable neutrals. The developed countries have arbitration-friendly provisions, because they understand the demands of international business, and the need for the resolution of disputes, as soon as practicable in an inexpensive means. However, this is not the same with developing countries. What happens with developing countries, though most are signatories to the New York Convention, is a situation where they all seem to do a catch-up with the developed countries. Ironically, some of the developing countries, especially in Asia have come up with fantastic provisions; notably in arbitration which have been widely recognised, such as Singapore.

Currently, there are so many arbitration seats to choose from, an obvious competition between the various seats from Paris , London, New York, India to Dubai etc.

A familiar scenario for most people is litigation.  Here the parties choose their representatives, based on their financial capability. As a matter of fact, the ability to pay for a good reputable lawyer to a large extent,  guarantees a successful litigation. Many litigation cases have been won solely on the basis of hiring a good lawyer, who more often than not are expensive.

The power of parties in a dispute to act accordingly over intangibles, such as respect, self-expression, self-determination and self-confidence is unquantifiable. A loss of these intangibles, can cause an escalating distress and suffering. This explains why parties take their responsibilities and duties seriously.

Disputes are inevitable , although sometimes avoidable. Parties with their powers in the resolution of disputes, can make the process, one that makes the journey worthwhile. Through tolerance, peaceful resolution of dispute, respect for human rights and valuable friendship.

Do parties use their powers effectively in the resolution of disputes?

Influence of litigation – global ODR system Tuesday, Jun 19 2012 


Litigation involves  negotiation between parties through their legal representatives. The essence of litigation is to address all issues raised by either party in the preliminary briefing. Parties are known to be slightly stressed prior to a verdict by the judge, due to fear of the unknown. Legal representatives have been are required to work tirelessly to ensure no stone is left un turned.

Landmark cases have been won, simply due to a significant fact which in some instances seemed insignificant initially. The act of springing up surprises is one of the strategies used by some legal representative to win cases. However, the courts are weary of this form of approach and are quick to raise the importance of disclosure. The US refers this as discovery, which fortunately is a massive industry and has expanded beyond the shores.

A number of companies are mandated to assist in the discovery exercise, and fortunately this has given the discovery industry a good ground  to think outside the box. In the UK, this is referred to as disclosure , which is equally an industry which is rapidly gaining some momentum.

It goes without saying, that disclosure is an integral factor in litigation. The importance of disclosing information in the form of documents,  lays the foundation for any worthwhile litigation. Thankfully, disclosure in a litigation case leads to transparency and accountability which obviously is imperative to a successful and satisfactory outcome to the parties.

Litigation continues to be the mainstream dispute resolution mechanism. However, in time Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been a widely acceptable form of dispute resolution by litigation practitioners. Hereafter, just like everything in life, hence the continuous move, and this time to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR).

ODR the emerging concept, is one that takes quite a lot of its attributes in dispute resolution, initially from litigation and thereafter from ADR. With the growth and expansion of technology, ODR seeks to be secure and  flexible.

The ODR process as a medium of dispute resolution uses the negotiation support tool which is evident in the litigation procedure. In ODR, the negotiation support tool utilises  the provision of feedback, on the likely outcomes of the dispute if the negotiation fails through the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

The primary goal of the negotiation support tool procedure is to resolve existing conflicts using dialogue strategies/techniques. In the eventuality the issues are unable to be resolved, a compensation or trade-off process may be involved in order to resolve the disputes between the parties.

The process used in ODR varies and depends on a number of factors. However, a constant occurrence in ODR as a form of dispute resolution is the presence of negotiation, through technological tools.

ODR expansion is imperative in a fast-moving world. More discussions on this phenomenal method of dispute resolution will be taking place in Prague, Czechoslovakia Republic from the 27-29th June 2012. Speakers will explore and brain storm this exciting evolving concept.

What are your thoughts on ODR as a form of dispute resolution in the global stage?

Facilitators in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Tuesday, May 29 2012 


The launch in January 2012 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Service (ADR) by Her Majesty Revenue and Customs in England and Wales, illustrates the importance of  resolution of disputes using alternative means. The use of ADR  mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation and conciliation, are being encouraged by both private and public sectors.

The essence of resolution of disputes by the HMRC using alternative means have been possible through the use of facilitators, who carry out checks on intending customers, evaluate the dispute and carry out an assessment based on the evaluation.

An obvious advantage of this procedure, is the fair and quick turn around of cases for parties as well as the costs efficiency. The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution can not be under – rated, neither can its place in dispute resolution be undermined.

In a recent interview the HMRC stated the use of ADR has been made to be inclusive of  small and medium enterprises as well as individuals in England and Wales.

HMRC’s, Jim Stevenson, Assistant Director, Local Compliance, said:

“The pilot has shown that ADR can resolve disputes without having to go to a tribunal – saving both time and money. It allows us to work together with our customers and resolve disputes much earlier than at present’.

He further stated, the essence of ADR by the HMRC is to resolve as a many disputes as possible within a short space of time.

Usually a facilitator is a trained personnel.  At the HMRC the facilitators are members of staff specifically trained in the application of ADR mechanisms to interested parties, and who have not in any way been involved in the dispute they seek to determine. The criteria of non-involvement normally used is to avoid conflict of interest.  This thereby helps with an impartial decision by the facilitator which will be acceptable to both parties.

As expected the facilitators deliver with the help of  the parties seeking the resolution of a dispute, and a comprehensive understanding of the case, within an agreed time frame or mandated time frame by the instituting body.

Sometimes, there are communication challenges and at this point the facilitator steps in to address the grey areas to either of the parties or both parties. More often , than not the clarification given by the facilitator helps put matters in perspective, and assist the involved parties determine which direction they intend to steer their dispute towards.

To get more information http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/adr/index.htm

In your view do you think ADR should be used in the mainstream public sector, just like the HMRC is doing in the resolution of disputes ?

Social Media revolution and resolution of disputes online Sunday, May 6 2012 


The Social Media has continued to play  an important role in society from Facebook,YouTube,Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn. It is not confined strictly to connecting with friends as seen on Facebook and twitter, rather it progresses to LinkedIn a professional platform for professionals to exchange ideas and forge business ideas.

In 2011, Africa triggered off a Social Media Revolution which saw the world look in amazement and interest. The revolutions were seemingly successful because of the use of social media platforms notably Facebook, twitter and you tube. The use of Facebook was one that saw real involvement from  parents to the youths, though most importantly the youths and the role played by them.

The exit of Ben Ali of Tunisia, and the oust of Mubarak and subsequently the death of Gaddafi signalled the validity of social media platforms; as a tool to organise and plan effectively revolutions and much later  ‘occupy’ protests around the world. This simply showed social media through Facebook can be used to plan an action, while twitter is used to disseminate information and YouTube a platform to broadcast the message to the world.

Consequently, with the planning of revolutions, protests, Occupy on the various social media platforms, it also means such conflicts/disputes can equally be resolved using social media platforms. There are numerous instances where misunderstandings, disputes and conflicts have been resolved through the various social media platforms.

The social media revolution in 2011, which was started in Africa highlighted the impact of social media in effecting change. Ultimately, conflicts and disputes can be resolved online using the various social media platforms.

Growth of ADR within the criminal context Monday, Apr 23 2012 


 

ADR has advanced in the criminal context from earlier `informal justice programs’ to the notable dominant forms we have today. These dominant forms of ADR include Victim–Offender Mediation Programs, focused on restitution and reconciliation of crime related offenders through one to one meetings between victims and offenders before trained mediators[1].  The Victim-Offender Mediation Program also addresses crimes, such as vandalism and burglary, but has as well been used to address complex criminal matters such as negligent homicide, armed robbery and rape.[2]

Quite a number of  criminal ADR have developed, such as victim-offender panels, victim assistance panels, community crime prevention programs, sentencing circles, ex-offender assistance, community service and specialist courts; these ad hoc programs are available to give the victim a voice, one which has been helpful to the offender, in the sense it enables the offender state their own side of the story. Understandably, giving reasons for actions carried out, and at the same time acting as an assistance mechanism in the healing process[3] .

With the evolution of ADR came the restructure of criminal law, this became imminent when society began to prefer ADR to court processes.  The objective of reconstructing criminal law was to adopt a more ` philosophical and political paradigm’ which shapes and legitimises some aspects of law operations, such approach is seen in the treatment of sexual offences such as rape.[4] ADR advocates at some point the appreciation of  the progress of  criminal law in the way it assists offenders, and the platform for change which ADR advocates. The  growth of ADR has simply been  because these processes are dealt with from the perspective of the institution.

Presumably the presentation of alternatives told from a different angle, such as the accused persons, helps illustrate the issues properly and gives the person a reason to hope for better or more so become a better person.[5] Sometimes, this can prove difficult because of the flexibility evident in ADR as opposed to criminal law, which more often than not is usually handled by the criminal court which obviously is strict and firm in the execution of its duties.

The issue of conflict resolution using ADR process is an area the Ford Foundation developed, a pioneer programme in the late 70’s dealing with complex public policy disputes, regulatory disputes, which was simply ways of handling matters outside the conventional methods.[6] This illustrates the power of ADR, the ability to stretch beyond the norm and still stay true to its  form. Therefore,  ADR has the potential to deal with a matter within the criminal context, without altering the essence of the justice.




[1] Maggie Grace `Criminal Alternative Dispute Resolution: Restoring Justice, Respecting responsibility, and Renewing Public Norms’ 2010 Vermont Law Review http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1524762  accessed 20 April 2012

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Nicola Lacey,Celia Wells & Dirk Meure, `Reconstructing Criminal Law’ [992] Vol 55 Modern Law Review   140

[5] Ibid 140

[6] Mauro Cappelletti `Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes within the Framework of the World-Wide Access –to-Justice Movement’ 1993 Vol 56  Modern Law Review 283

« Previous PageNext Page »