Please post your answers here.
Answered by Huan Pham (Jack)
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work?
I work at a human rights commission that deals with discrimination as the primary human rights issue. In our operation, human rights officers are employed to address discrimination violations.
Human rights officers at this Commission are both human rights advocates and conflict resolvers. The role is unique in that the officer is both of these simultaneously. As a result synergy between the two practitioners was a natural evolution for the functionality of the officer’s role.
Approaches to Conflict and Approaches to Human Rights
Both conflict resolver and human rights advocate converge to one approach. In our case, the human rights officer must delicately balance between assisting parties with finding a resolution and their fact finding role. Traditional approaches to conflict and human rights only furthered the tension. Therefore an alternative approach needed to be explored. The Commission then considered the restorative notion from restorative justice and arrived at fundamental restorative principles as a guiding lens in their approach to conflict and human rights. Restorative approaches have allowed the delicate balance between the advocate and the resolver to co-exist. Restorative approaches have allowed parties to a dispute to have an opportunity to tell their story without fear of retaliation or further violent consequences or further harm. This opportunity in turn allows for an understanding of the real issues to be achieved. An understanding of the issues is crucial to the success of a sustainable dialogue. A sustainable dialogue evolves into a state of peace. Once peace is achieved (short term or long term) it is possible for both parties to achieve a resolution (for the ADR practitioner) and justice (for the human rights activist).
Shared Language
Both conflict resolver and human rights advocate use the same language to build trust and create dialogue. In effect they become co-dependent and operate as a team. In the case of this human rights commission, the resolver and the advocate become one in the same.
If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
The first part of this question is a hypothetical therefore refer to the above question. The second part (the How part) in effect asks how could synergy be created if none exist? It is likely, given the similar goals of the two practitioners as referenced by Ellen Lutz, Eileen Babbitt, and Hurst Hannum, that synergies will naturally develop through time as the professions realize that they are interdependent. Creating an artificial collaboration may further the tension. Both the resolver and advocate must realize that they share the same goals.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings.
Suggested Synergies include:
1. Both resolver and advocate believe that actual and perceived impartiality are important.
2. Both resolver and advocate believe that cultural sensitivity is important.
3. Both resolver and advocate believe that participation in the process is important.
4. Both resolver and advocate believe that prevention is the best approach to violent conflicts.
Assessment of the Synergies
1. Impartiality is critical to building trust in both the human rights role and the conflict resolver role. However, in reality unconditional impartiality may not be achieved. Human rights advocates in their role as fact finders may miss information through various reasons and create an unwanted perception of bias. Conflict resolvers in the eagerness to achieve a resolution may apply coercion and negotiation techniques that may compromise impartiality.
2. Cultural sensitivity is an important part of achieving the end goals of both practitioners. In reality this may not be fully achieved. Human rights advocates eager to find justice may put less weight on the significance of cultural norms. Culture sensitivity may add a complexity to a dialogue with an end goal of resolution.
3. With respect to the world of conflict resolvers, participation is not always possible. Not all Stakeholders are willing participants. With respect to human rights, timing of participation is important. Late participation or premature participation can add a level of complexity to conflict.
4. Prevention is ideal however, in reality with respect to the human rights role of fact finding, fact finding can cause further tension and an escalation of conflict. With respect to conflict resolvers prevention by way of dialogue is ideal but not always successful. A dialogue is not certain to avoid conflict.
What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
1.The will of the advocates and resolvers to follow through.
2.Practitioners are human beings themselves and tensions between the two areas are always going to exist.
3.Polictical moods a variable, causing complexity to the conflict.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
I have not experienced this myself because my job currently is in more of a humanitarian role. Based on what I’ve read, general observations, & overall research, I believe a good synergy, in a nutshell, could be working together & playing off each other strengths and building up each others weakness. I realize this poses the challenge of each side figuring out & agreeing to what those are. But based upon our readings, case studies, & dialogue from fellow classmates, and to put it plainly, ADR practitioners seem to be the frontrunners to negotiate and end the immediate violence, possibly utilizing information from human rights investigations to achieve their goal. This would have to be done carefully, as the readings stated, information released at the wrong time or not in conjunction with the negotiators, it could further harm the peace process. If ADR & HR practitioners learn to together synergistically, it could pave the road toward the establishment of long-term peace & human rights policies.
There is a lot of material that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of both human rights activists & ADR practitioners, so why not merge them more to compliment each other instead of hinder each others practices? I realize each side has their views on the way that they think the process should be done. For example; some human rights practitioners want justice before peace and some conflict resolution practitioners work for peace and then justice. Every situation is different and calls for a different set of standards each time. If both sides can use their own negotiating tactics to devise procedures & plans in which they can employ in various situations, I think there could be the potential for a great partnership to form.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
I think not all syergies are possible, some definitely are and would need to be discussed and established in the beginning. In reality, ADR & HR practitioners could want the same or similar outcomes, but maybe in just a different order. Another would be that the two parties work together, post-conflict, to help plan strategies that establish both peace and human rights, as well as validate past human rights abuses the indigenous people may feel.
Some of the challenges could be if the two sides can’t learn to speak the same language or insist that their way of doing things is the better way. Also, making sure to hear all sides involved in the atrocities, so that people feel they have had some sort of recognition of the past and might be more likely to look to & participate future solutions. And lastly, the challenge of seeing it through. The readings talked about how challenging it could be to continue the peace/human rights process without the long-term commitment to the process through various political, social, & economic changes.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
I have not experience any synergies myself, as I work as a Human Right advocate. What I do is to promote human rights and develop strategies for pressuring governments to confirm their behaviour to international human rights law. Our own investigators provide us with the reports we need to work on the right abuses alleged in those reports. We also work with local NGO giving them support, as many times we create coalitions to increase pressure on own government.
The synergies that could be created depends of each case, but mainly involves that they both work together considering that in the short run, both seek to end violence, loss of life, and other suffering as quickly as possible and in the long run, both human rights and conflict resolution practitioners try to assist societies in taking steps to ensure that the violence does not recur and that the rights of every human being are respected. It is important to incorporate human rights norms in ADR efforts for peacebuilding in cases of extreme power asymmetry. Human rights norms help address these asymmetries in two important ways. First, they help empower the weaker party -- a norm that the conflict resolution community already endorses. By strengthening the salience of human rights norms, third-party conflict resolution processes can achieve greater efficacy by giving a weaker party the support it might need to negotiate from a more equitable vantage point. Second, human rights norms are important in reinforcing the notion that a state's sovereignty carries with it a responsibility to protect the civilians within its borders.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
By trying no to adopt contradictory approaches to the same problem for instance by recognising when ADR and HR advocates help accomplish rule or law. By having clear when ADR can support and complement court reform, or can by-pass ineffective or discredited courts,. Recognise when ADR can increase satisfaction of disputant with outcomes, when ADR programs increase access to justice for disadvantaged groups., etc.
Another challenge can be to agree in advance when ADR programs and HR advocates can intervene in each moment of the conflict resolution. Not always ADR help to accomplish development objectives, for instance when legal rights need to be establish or enforced to reduce power imbalance. Relationship between ADR and the formal legal system needs to be clarified to reduce uncertainty about dispute resolutions options.
In order to come up with some synergies, in my mind, we have to think about Cr actors and HR people as a one organization or two entities with a constant dialogue or communication between the two parties.
According to the readings and the 3rd webinar the approaches such as Restorative Justice, Structural Changes require participation of both sides.
However, the successfulness of the mentioned approaches depends on the local’s knowledge on justice and human rights. Also how conflict actors define “justice” in the case of conflicts. For instance, the interethnic conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbek groups happens in every 20-30 years. In 1990 when it happened again, there was not any punishment, and there is absence of detailed report about the conflict. Locals, even victims accepted impunity of perpetrators as a normal consequence of the conflict. Lack of knowledge on rights, justice and law impeded international NGOs implement peace projects and bring justice in 2010, June 1o when conflict again evoked. Simply people couldn’t understand why they have to e accused if they just protect themselves or another party started and they just responded.
Most of the victims were silent about their issues because they weren’t familiar about their right or did not know where turn to because they feel insecure. Human Rights Education is the best tool to teach people to solve their problem through juridical system, or law.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
The transitional justice field requires a combination of human rights and conflict resolution approaches. Transitional justice aims to respond to human rights violations through a variety of mechanisms to achieve reconciliation, re-establish rule of law, and prevent the further human rights abuses. While some transitional justice mechanisms are punitive and based on the application of international human rights law, ADR is central to others since high-level prosecutions can’t fully address the needs of victims. The TJ field is a bit split between people who focus on criminal prosecutions and others who focus more restorative justice approaches. It’s on the restorative justice approach end where we can find different applications of ADR. In my experience with Libya, the ADR approaches to TJ activities can begin sooner than the judicial forms of TJ, in this case due to government instability and unresolved detention of key figures. A human rights approach can be helpful in prioritizing TJ efforts and the long term goals of TJ- establishing rule of law, the right to justice, and the right to truth.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
Synergies are very practical (and I believe, already happening quite a bit) but perhaps more so at “lower” levels. The Lutz reading broke down how conflict resolution can be used at multiple levels- track 1, 1.5, and 2. Like most of our other readings, however, Lutz only defined human rights activists at a track 1 level that is focused on getting states to comply to international human rights law. This is a narrow understanding of the different ways human rights are being promoted around the world. The Holland reading begins to show a more nuanced of human rights work, beyond the level of nation states and international HR advocacy orgs (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch). Human rights are being discussed in nuanced ways to advance the protection of rights, access to justice, peacebuilding, transitional justice, etc. I suspect human rights education is taking place more frequently than Holland finds but HRE is not always branded as HRE. For example, take a project revising prison regulations in Libya to better protect prisoner rights. Human rights was utilized as a basis of the revised regulations, but the workshops to get to those revised regulations were not branded as HRE. Human rights were a central thread, but as a means to a specific objective. When we talk about human rights in stand alone trainings and make the “so what” of human rights that countries should not violate the x y and z conventions, that’s when we get frustrated responses by local partners. When human rights work isn’t viewed as an ongoing process of expanding understandings of rights and justice, that’s when human rights and conflict resolution work can seem particularly in conflict.
This may be a silly question but this week’s readings and previous assignment questions used conflict resolution practitioners instead of ADR practitioners as a key term. Is there a reason you used “ADR practitioners” in this week’s questions? When we see conflict res vs ADR practitioner, what main differences should come to mind? I see conflict res as broader but don’t have too much of a sense beyond that. (My apologies if this was covered in the lecture- I’ll be watching it soon but am traveling with spotty internet.)
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission promotes human rights, the prevention of human rights violations through education, and facilitates resolutions through restorative conflict resolution processes. Naturally, our work combines both the work of human rights advocacy and conflict resolution, so the synergies between the two approaches are quite apparent; however, the difference being that this is one organization that combines these two practices as oppose to a conflict situation where you are working with human rights advocates and conflict resolution practitioners as separate entities.
The Commission focuses on one broad type of human rights violations and that is discrimination, however, there are many characteristics that are protected from discrimination. My role as a Restorative Facilitator in the legal unit of the Commission is different from Jack and Lianne’s positions as Human Rights Officers in the dispute resolution unit, however, in essence we have similar roles but in different stages of the process. My role requires that I be a neutral facilitator to these restorative resolution processes, however, I am a trained lawyer who has always focused on human rights. I consider myself to be both a human rights advocate and a conflict resolution practitioner specializing in restorative approaches. So there is a balance required between these hats of facilitator and human rights advocate because in my role I must be neutral. However, the processes that we undertake with respondents and complainants furthers human rights goals, prevents further human rights abuses and fosters relationships that allow the parties to address harm and move forward in their lives. So although my role is not designed to advocate for human rights per se, it still seeps through in our process naturally. I help the parties build insights which often lead them to have a better appreciation of human rights, their obligations, their rights and that naturally builds compassion and understanding which builds the relationship but also promotes human rights. This dialogue approach in the end is amenable to both human rights advocacy and conflict resolution.
The Commission is an example of a work environment that practically and successfully combines the two fields. Perhaps it’s a new emerging approach or solution to the tensions that generally underlie the two fields. For our work, human rights and conflict resolution are interdependent and compliment each other quite well in the restorative approach.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
Human rights practitioners and conflict resolution practitioners have similar goals both in the short term and long term. They want the violence and loss of life to stop and they want to prevent this from happening again in the future. The goals are very similar, it’s the approach that can cause the tension. However, there are similarities in the approach as well, in that both practitioners are impartial third parties who want to challenge the existing norms and structures that are causing the conflict. They have similar morals and values in the sense that they want the violence to stop. With these broad goals and values in line, the two should be able to work in a complimentary fashion.
Perhaps more dialogue is needed between the practitioners entering a conflict to come up with an approach that considers both fields and works together towards the goals of peace and justice. Conflict resolution practitioners need to understand the value and relevance of human rights for long term success and human rights practitioners need to understand the value in building relationships and addressing harm through understanding. There can be balance and harmony with these two roles if there was more focus on the shared goals and values and how these two can work together collaboratively to compliment each other in a way that moves the conflict forward into a more peaceful state.
Focusing on punishment to address the harm doesn’t always end up being “just.” The victims don’t get answers and lack an understanding of what really happened. This understanding often ends up being the most healing experience for victims – to have the truth, to understand why, and even to forgive. So in some ways, perhaps human rights activists should consider what justice really means to the people in each conflict because it may differ. Justice may mean having these answers, which could be another synergy between the practitioners. Participation of victims, transgressors, community members and other stakeholders, such as those who can actually make changes on the ground and within the structures of the state are also key to the dialogue process and also for justice. Participation of those involved is another important synergy between the two practitioners. However, all stakeholders may not be willing to participate. In a restorative process, you would not coerce, force or pressure someone to participate.
Both practitioners also value cultural sensitivity in addressing the harm and engaging in dialogue. This is very important for both practitioners to consider in their roles because without this consideration you run the risk of escalating tensions.
I think all synergies are possible, but there may certainly be challenges. It really is fact dependent – who is involved, what is the conflict etc. So, while all synergies are possible they may not be possible in all conflict situations.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
Here is a case study from Somaliland for its political settlement and state formation. The study was conducted by The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) from Australia, why did Somaliland’s civil wars end while Somalia continued? The paper uses a case study of Somaliland to examine several questions that are critical to contemporary development and state-building assistance. Principally: why do some countries develop the capacity to deliver security and inclusive development while others do not, and what is the role of leadership in determining these outcomes? Having emerged from serious civil conflict, the case of Somaliland offers insights into why some domestic power struggles – including violent ones – build the foundations for relative political order while others perpetuate cycles of economic malaise and political violence? This paper also asks how we are to understand the politics that shape the institutions that give expression to relatively stable political orders. In so doing, it explores the delicate question of whether the lack of political and/or economic inclusivity might be an inevitable part of forging a stable political settlement in the short term and if so, what the implications for international development and state-building assistance are? This piece is concerned with the place of political violence – and perceptions thereof – in establishing relatively robust political settlements. It asks whether violence is, as Charles Tilly (1975; 1985) suggested in his study of European state formation, still critical for the processes by which locally legitimate institutions are consolidated, and identities attached to the state are embedded. Alternatively, does political violence create ‘conflict traps’ that, as Paul Collier has argued, are more likely to prevent states from developing effective institutions and economic growth? (Collier, 2007). Is political violence, therefore, necessarily akin to ‘development in reverse’ (World Bank, 2003) or can it also play a more constructive role in establishing the means by which violence is channelled towards the provision of security and protection of property? If so, under what conditions, and under what types of leadership, might violence be tamed, and what are the implications for external actors? This paper asks these questions through an examination of the structural and agential factors that drove central and southern Somalia to massive political violence and disorder while the northwest of the country –Somaliland – managed to overcome its civil wars and establish relative peace during the same period.
I will share with you and send the case study to your emails later. You can find out how Somaliland has developed its own institution through process of conflict resolution rather than focusing human rights.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
When responding to conflict, human rights advocates and conflict resolvers share similar goals. In the short run, both sets of practitioners seek to end violence, limit loss of life, and minimize other suffering as quickly as possible. In the long run, both sets of practitioners try to assist societies in taking steps to ensure that the violence does not recur and that the rights of every human being are respected. However, to achieve these goals, each set of practitioners uses different methods based on different underlying assumptions. As a result, both groups occasionally adopt contradictory or even mutually exclusive approaches to the same problem. For example, conflict resolvers, eager to achieve a negotiated settlement to a conflict with minimum loss of life, may fail to give sufficient weight to the relevance of human rights to the long-term success of their work. Human rights advocates, on the other hand, may undervalue the pressures under which mediators operate to bring about an immediate end to loss of life. If they limit their activities to shaming, negative publicity, and judicial condemnation of criminals, human rights activists may miss opportunities for improvements in the human rights situation that could be achieved through the use of the negotiation and diplomatic techniques upon which conflict resolvers rely.
ADR and HR advocates have the following challenges:-
- Relationship between ADR and the formal legal system needs to be clarified to reduce uncertainty about dispute resolutions options.
- ADR and HR advocates should assist the fulfillment and accomplishment of the rule of law and governance
- ADR and HR advocates should focus on the intervention of conflict resolution applications.
I have not directly dealt with any synergies between HR and ADR, although I have dealt with each individually (with the same group, no less). Understandably, each has its own fluid movement and apprehension about the other but it is necessary to synthesize both so that tangible results can occur.
Both have several common convictions, as stated before.
- prevention of conflict
- participation
- cultural sensitivity
- perceived impartiality.
In understanding these convictions and addressing them first separately and then together, I believe that a natural synergy takes place as a conflict is being resolved. Perhaps both HR and ADR come to an agreement on the necessity of self-advocacy during a negotiation. This is a simple example of synergy (but does take an agreement by both, which may undermine the ‘synergy’ taking place and actually point to a direct divide that fosters diplomacy- not much of a working beautiful synergy in my eyes).
More substantial I believe, is the education that comes in the third stage of conflict, where both parties rely heavily on transformative techniques (such as education). This education hopefully changes the way parties interact in the future; meshing human rights with peace building activities. For ADR professionals, education may occur continuously through the negotiation and mediation process, and for HR professionals, education may occur in the first and third stages of conflict mostly. Again, the relationship is fluid and the ‘stages’ create a static image of conflict I don’t necessarily agree with, so education may occur at all times of the resolution process for both HR and ADR professionals, therefore, a ‘synergy’ of sorts.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in the political climate HR and ADR professionals face following the conciliation process. It is quite naïve to assume that the processes used and learned throughout the resolution process will be successfully implemented by everyone after the fact, and a long-term commitment will be upheld.
What are the synergies you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven´t experienced any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
The word synergy as described by the Oxford Dictionary means "the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of its parts". For a person who feels comfortable with all these terms this may seem like stating the obvious. But for someone who had never really studied this word in depth the full understanding of it allows for a more complete view of what is trying to be explained. In summary synergy is an equal to the ability of couterparts to work together. This has been something that has not been achieved for neither Human Rights advocates nor ADR practitioners for a long time. Scholars around the world are beginning to feel that maybe rather than constantly opposing one another these two areas should work together to be able to achieve not only their short term goals, but also establish their long term goals. And that is the place where the word synergy kicks in.
As we have been studying this previous weeks HR and ADR have many opposing views, although most of their goals are similar. Even though what they desire to achieve is basically the same, their approaches to the same conflict tend to be entirely different. Whereas HR advocates are more aggresive and focus on stablishing justice and human rights on the long term and finding the guilty, ADR practitioners place their focus on finding solutions and mediating problems on the short term to cease fire and end violence as soon as possible. They have usually considered the other a hindrance to their area of work, as it seems to be like the other is there just to mess up what they are trying to achieve. Rather than thinking this way advocates and practitioners should see the other not as an enemy, but rather as a friend, in order to establish a more stable foundation for both peace and justice in both the short and long term.
Some of the synergies that HR and ADR share that we studied this past week on the course were the following: 1) Impartiality and independence 2) Cultural Sensitivity 3) Participation in process. These are the things that deifne a common ground between HR and ADR and which could help to allow them to realize that they maybe have more things in common than what they have previously believed.
Maybe the greatest obstacle HR advocates and ADR practitioners have to overcome in order to be able to work together is the idea they have created in their heads in respect to the other. They should realize that they will achieve more by uniting and working off of each others strengths and weaknesses. It is about learning to let go of certain ideas and beliefs in order to achieve the greater good and to open up their eyes to the world of possibilites that could emerge from the two working together rather than apart. Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" This quote can be applied to these areas of work. Rather than tearing each other down and complicating the work of the other, they should build off the other and make the other´s part in the conflict as easy as possible.
Some more synergies that could be created or found between these two areas of work read as follow:
1) Working together to reconciliate all the parties involved in the conflict, yet to deliver justice to those who deserve it and not leave them unpunished.
2) Working together to avoid conflict through the general education of human rights to all people, yet within the frames of respect of their cultural aspects.
3) Learning the best from the other to be more effective. HR advocates can learn, for example to go beyond naming and shaming those who have been responsible for human right violations which in some cases, has only increased the violence. In some circumstances knowing the art of mediation and fiding common ground can go farther than just poiting a finger at the guilty. In the same way ADR practioners can learn to be more aggresive in their approach regarding the deliverance of justice, as opposed to simply ignoring it because that can create problems and more violence in the future.
Asses how realistic are some of the synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
The main synergies (or also shared goals and values) listed by Lutz, Babbit, and Hannum in their essay, "Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners´ Perspective" list as follow:
1) Impartiality and independence (actual and in appearance)
2) Cultural sensitivity
3) Participation in process
Although they all look very nice on paper the actual challenge lies on carrying them out. Although human rights NGO´s try to maintain partiality as they do not support nor oppose governments or political systems they have a tendency to lean towars the weak when it comes to conflict. This lack of impartiality can not only complicate things in the negotiation table for the ADR practitioners, but also make it harder for all the parties involved to maintain their credibility toward the peace process. Although it tends to be just as hard for ADR practitioners to remain unbiased under certain circumstances, it is of extreme importance they maintain the ability to resolve the conflict without taking sides, which seems to be HR activists main struggle.
Cultural sensitivity is of extreme importance when dealing with conflict. Both HR activists and CR practioners need to have the ability to have an open mind to different mind sets and views on what "peace" and "justice" is. They have to be extremely careful in how they present it to certain people as they may not be so open to these ideas if presented as, "The way the West thinks you should do things, therefore the right way." This can be a challenge for some people who will go to those places in an agressive manner to fight for the rights they believe these people deserve. This is not to be misunderstood. It is not that these people do not deserve the same rights a person in a nation without conflict would have. They do. But maybe their approach to them is slightly different and that should learn to be respected as well.
Although one would wish that every single stakeholder in the negotiation table would go with an open and willing mind ready to take the best choices for the common good of everyone this is generally not the case. We can see this even from the attitudes we have studied between ADR and HR. Even in the sphere of people who are supposed to be mediating the problem there are differences and problems that do not allow them to effectively work towards their common goal. Now imagine opposing parties in a conflict who have in one way or another deeply affected their counterpart. Of course they will go with the main objective of winning more than what they will lose. Therefore effective or positive participation will not always be an option, but at least it is important that all sides in a conflict be fully represented. The main challenge of this is making them work together and mediate the problem through good and clear communication.
Q1: What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
For as far as I can see there are no ADR practitioners active in the area that I am working in (Chiapas, Mexico). Because of this I do not have any experience with synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners, so I will comment on the synergies that I think could be created.
The good cop bad cop method that has been discussed in this week's seminar offers some great opportunities for a synergy between HR and ADR. A bit of public shaming by HR activists can go a long way in pushing one of the conflict parties to the negotiation table. They might be winning the war, but losing the battle in the public arena can be just as important. Once at the negotiation table the ADR practitioners can take over. The problem with this method is that it needs some coordination to have the desired results. Both of the intervening parties need to know at what stage the other is operating, in order to assess which buttons need to be pushed to get parties to the negotiation table or to get them to make concessions. This coordination however poses a threat to the important principle of impartiality on the side of the ADR practitioners; if a conflict party that is being accused of human rights violations by an NGO, catches the mediator working together with that same NGO, he might very well decide to walk away from the negotiations.
Looking at the example from Chiapas used by Holland I think we can see a variation on this synergy, where HR and ADR processes are not being conducted simultaneously. Holland describes how Frayba has educated the population into taking the government to court. If, in the following period, this will lead to convictions, the road to new peace negotiations might be clear. Mediators that will enter the arena in that stage would not be affected by the public shaming/conviction, but would still be able to profit from this synergy.
Q2: Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
Lutz' solution on the tension between justice and reconciliation is to have both parties take on a more forward-looking agenda that includes a complete set of measures for the reconstruction of a society. I think in every conflict situation all involved parties will only benefit from such an agenda, but it seems too simplistic to suggest that this would take away the dilemma of justice and reconciliation. When a conflict has strongly divided a society it seems inevitable that both groups feel the need for reparation of damage done by the other group, while simultaneously both groups would want to protect and honour those who have fought for their cause. These people that one wants to punish are very likely to be the same people that the other wants to protect.
Political reform might take away part of the tension and need for justice, but it probably won't entirely. Finding the balance between justice and reconciliation will continue to be a precarious undertaking, whether looking at it from a short term perspective or from a long term perspective.
What are the synergies that you experience between HUMAN rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
I have not work directly with human rights or conflict resolution issues and as such may not have firsthand experiences of the synergies between HR activists and ADR practitioners. However I have followed and continue to follow the development in Nigeria with regards to the Boko Haram insurgence. The recent kidnapping of the young school girls brought to the limelight the issues of violation of human rights and the threat to peace and security in the land. It has also exposed how different actors are approaching the resolution of the crisis and search for peace and justice. Most these approach or rather realities relate to key issues underscored in this course. In terms of synergies, I believe both parties, HR activists - calling for the return of the girls and bringing the perpetrators to justice and the ADR - seeking the end to the crisis are becoming more aware of their common grounds and need for complementarities. In other words they both realize their need for each other and the value of shared resources. One example that resonates with some shared in this course is the provision of facts by HR activists who through their various fact-finding methodologies have access to both conditions of the abduction and other hidden human rights violations. These facts shared with government negotiators with Boko Haram have been of immense contribution to their approach both in method and content. In some instants both groups have been integrated into the conflict resolution process. Though the girls are not rescued yet, the response of the government to the issue has been remarkably different in positive terms.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings. What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
I see value in the suggestions made in the readings. For instance I don’t think it is about how realistic are these synergies as it is about the collaboration that is needed to follow through with the implementation of these opportunities as Lutz et al pointed out. From the Nigerian experience I referred to here, ensuring this collaboration has to do with getting it right from the outset that both are not in competition such that would privilege a silo mentality. It may not be proper to say that HR activists want justice and not peace or in the reverse the ADR practitioners want peace and not justice. Apart from collaboration, another challenge here is presumption. All situations are not the same so these may not be applicable in all situations.
Q1 My current work does not involve either of human right activism or ADR practice that would enable me experiences of their synergies. However from watching current global crises, I believe the need for synergies between HR activists and ADR practitioners is both necessary and urgent. Without such, peace will be unstable; justice may be an illusion especially from the point of the victims. One point of entry to such synergies is finding areas of convergence between the two groups. Whether they are focusing or structural reform or restorative justice for instance it helpful to both groups and the situation in hand if there common goals are mapped out. This is where I also see the importance of joint training that would enable them appreciate the need for the convergence and also the skills of maintain synergies.
Q2 These examples of synergies mentioned in the readings have strong potential in improving the work of ADR and ensuring the demands of HR provided there no oversight of insight. By this I mean overlooking or taking for granted the core components of the various standpoints.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?.
I never experienced synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work because in the work I am doing, I am part the logistic team of the Independent Assessment Process, the jurisdictional part of the agreement signed by the government of Canada and the indigenous community.
But from my research and lectures, in the comparative way, even they have some differences mostly in the post-crisis process; human rights activists and ADR practitioners have same method, lot of similarities and are complementary. In the Practitioners’ Perspectives[1] we can understand that they all have the same goal.
Same Goal:
Realize peace and end the violence, prevent the violence or the human rights violations. << Both have short- and long-term goals. In the short term, human rights aim to pressure governments and other responsible parties to end human rights violations and ensure that those individuals responsible for abuses are held accountable>>. In the short term, conflict resolvers try to help the parties to a conflict move towards or reach a settlement that satisfies their interests, while also attempting to decrease the overall level of violence. For the long term, conflict resolvers facilitate improved relations between parties to achieve greater inter-personal and institutional capacity to resolve or deescalate future conflict and prevent it from becoming violent. This involves assisting the parties in examining, and possibly changing, their underlying assumptions and attitudes toward their adversaries.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners have the Same Method:
Share same Value:
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners share the same value:
- Impartiality and Independence
- Cultural Sensitivity
- Participation in the Process
- Neutrality
- Facilitate Reconciliation
How realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings?
The ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRACTITIONERS GUIDE outlines strongly that human rights activists and ADR practitioners are very complementary in the conflict resolution.
In some crisis, or Human rights violation case, single ADR program may not be able to accomplish simultaneously all the role, goal or benefits. A clearly articulated set of goals will allow program designers to make necessary trade-offs when ADR goals conflict with other development goals or when ADR goals are inconsistent.
Same Limits
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners do not set precedent, refine legal norms, or establish broad community or national standards, nor do they promote a consistent application of legal rules.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners cannot correct systemic injustice, discrimination, or violations of human rights.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners do not have any educational, punitive, or deterrent effect on the population.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners are inappropriate to resolve multi-party cases in which some of the parties or stakeholders do not participate.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners may undermine other judicial reform efforts.
Human rights activists and ADR practitioners do not work well in the context of extreme power imbalance between parties.
[1] Ellen L. Lutz, Eileen F. Babbitt, and Hurst Hannum
In Costa Rica, in 2013, it was established an space of dialog between government and indigenous territories of south region; this space called "Mesa de Diálogo” became an important instrument for rein vindication of indigenous rights and for their participation in the construction of proposals and alternatives that respond to their needs and their rights.
In this sense, the Costa Rica´s UN Mandate and the Defensoría de los Habitantes played a really important role. Even if UN Mandate is to ensure human rights as well as promote peace, since my point of view the main role of this organization in the whole process was aimed to promote peace and they even facilitate the dialog process. In the other hand, the role of the Defensoría de los Habitantes, focus on defending indigenous people´s rights; and although both organizations weren´t goals exactly the same, both participations made of this process as successful as it was, mainly because of both complementary roles.
I agree with many of the readings suggestions, like the idea of educating people in human rights or mitigating perceived and real needs; that in the case that we´re talking about citizens in general, but when it becomes about indigenous people, there´s something besides peace or needs that are mentioned first, and that´s the right to establish their own autonomy.
This makes difficult even trying to teach human rights or to resolve conflicts by alternative disputes resolutions, just because most of the time these methods and even indigenous rights, come from non indigenous cultures and in that way, it could infringe their autonomy.
What are the synergies (collaborations) that you have experienced between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work?
How?
In my work with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (the Commission) as a human rights officer, we act as both the human rights officer and the ADR practitioner.We have found that in looking at the various provincial human rights commissions or tribunals, it is a unique role.
We have to find the balance between the two roles: as the human rights advocate we must investigate and find the facts to see if there are sufficient grounds upon which a tribunal properly instructed, may find discrimination; alternatively as the ADR specialist, we assist in ways in which the parties can come together to explore possible solutions to the issues.
The primary guiding principle is that of a restorative relational approach: all the stakeholders are invited to come together to share their stories while hearing what the other parties have to say.In the world of Nova Scotia human rights, this was only ever done in an external off-the-record mediation.With the introduction of the Commission sponsored resolution conference, the off-the-record mediation evolved into an on-the-record conference where at the conclusion of the process if there was no agreement, we utilised all of the information shared in a report with a recommendation as to the next step in the process, thus facilitating both the ability of the parties to have resolution (ADR) and justice (human rights).
Perhaps the most important thing that the two roles share is that of relationship building with the parties. Without that relationship, there could be no confidence in the system, no trust in the officer and no confidence of the officer's neutrality and impartiality.
If you haven't experienced any synergies (collaborations) between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created?How?
It may be difficult to create these synergies where none exist.Collaboration might develop naturally over time, and the two groups might be encouraged to work together so that they can get to that point where they have a better appreciation of each other's roles.
Assess how realistic are some of the suggested synergies between human rights activists and ADR practitioners from the readings.What would be some of the challenges to implement some of these synergies?
Both practitioners have shares values and aspirations:both want to stop the discrimination and with it in some instances, the violence - it's the way that it is achieved that differs; both understand the need to be culturally sensitive - the appreciation factor may differ from one to the other; inclusion is a third area that the two groups share, however the human rights activists may take a limited approach to inclusion while the ADR practitioner may seek to include every possible stakeholder.
The possibilities are realistic but the two groups should have an appreciation of the others approach in addition to considering that they may compliment each other once the first limb is appreciated.Collaboration is always possible: the groups need to overcome the urge to think that their way of doing business is the only correct way and be prepared to work with others who use a different lens in looking at the problem and finding ways to address it.
Some other challenges may include the particular personalities of those involved; the will of the parties to collaborate; the political climate of the government and the type of conflict.
What are the synergies that you experience between human rights activists and ADR practitioners in your work? If you haven't experience any synergies between HR and ADR yet, what synergies could be created? How?
My experience is that human rights activists and ADR practitioners create unstable synergies. By that I mean that a human rights activist is more direct and confronting in the dialog than ADR practitioners. When they are in the same room/meeting they will not "speak the same language” and will therefore create an intense atmosphere. This kind of atmosphere is not constructive for ADR practitioners but in many ways "ideal” for the human rights activist. An ADR activist wants to find "solutions” and a human rights practitioner wants to condemn.
It doesn't have to be this way. The ADR practitioner and the human rights activist can accept each other's qualifications and skills and take advantages of the differences. For example an ADR practitioner plays the "understanding part” as the mediator while the human rights activist is the confronting part talking about the parties responsibilities for the human rights violations. In that way they will create a dynamic synergy where the parties can be confronted with the reality of the abuses and in the same time be presented with different solutions.