Both to human rights practitioners and to ADR practitioners, their ultimate goal is sustainable peace and justice, and emerging trend of both arenas' collaborations obviously shows the needs of each sector to be complementary. However, thinking of the core meaning of human rights, which I believe the norm exists for all human beings to keep their basic rights while living in the contemporary world, all methods should be considered for complainants' or victims' benefits first. And I believe there would be the beauty and the reasons of these two sectors collaborations. The court system is obviously an effective way to protect the human rights and to address human rights violations, but due to the complexities of each society and each victim's backgrounds, in many cases, it does not always cover each victim's own benefits. It is always time and cost consuming, hard to access without help of law professionals. In sensitive cases, such as gender based discriminations or sexual abusing issues, ADR processes should be equipped and offered, if there's a need from victim or complainant. What national institutions and concerned organizations for those victims have to do is an assessment of the cases whether they are systemic and should be addressed in public or not. Facilitating these conflicts resolution management is primary, but when the issue is considered to be being repeated, systemic and crucial for promoting structural changes, considering the court system and seeking justice process should be followed. It, of course, still remains in national institutions and concerned organizations' capacity to mollify victims' tension and encourage them to face the future adversities when the case go public. In line of this perspective, I don't think ADR process should be placed behind the curtain all the time. Via diverse ways through those facilitating institutions, ADR can be implementing its own role and cover the shortcomings of the law system. It always takes long time to make structural changes and entrench new idea and thoughts in a society. Given the fact that preventing future harm depends on the changes of public awareness, embedding human rights aspects in all kinds of education should be considered too.
Do you think that racial or gender-based discrimination could be addressed effectively using ADR techniques such as conciliation or mediation? Why yes/no? Could you provide some examples from your own work?
I basically don't like human rights being dealt privately. I believe the existence of some kind of universal human rights norms that should be applied to all human beings regardless of any circumstances. However, racial or gender-based discrimination could be sensitive to those harmed, and this is where the ADR should be used for the sake of them. To maximize the benefits of complainants in the ADR process, facilitator focuses on selecting mediator or conciliator whom the complainants are able to count on through the whole process. This could undermine the core value of the ADR process, impartiality, but this is what the violators should put up with in regard that the ADR is still more beneficial to them than bring the case to the law system.