Should human rights be dealt in public via courts in order to promote structural changes, or should they be dealt with in private (behind closed doors) via ADR techniques in order to better answer the desires of the complainants? Explain your opinions.
I haven’t work neither as a Human right practitioner nor a conflict resolution actor yet and cannot share work experience on the topic.
Nevertheless, personally saying, first, dealing with human rights depends on local people’s understanding of justice (what is justice for people). Second thing is power of government structure, do citizens recognize government official and along them also legal system. Third, access to legal system, for many legal system is costly and takes long time to solve their problem.
For instance, for majority of interethnic conflict survivors ( interethnic conflict in osh, kyrgyzstan) admit justice as a revenge as the government of the country was weak to bring justice and punish the perpetrators of the conflict. The courts and legal system seem to be not accessible because of widespread corruption in them.
The similar situation was discussed in Cambodia. The nature of traditional conflict resolution ways, how indigenous people deal with conflicts via traditional conflict resolution ways instead of through courts in Cambodia. Mainly, people do not have full access, because it costly and takes time. As well as people do not trust legal ways to solve conflicts because its corrupt and outcomes would be biased. This situation is increasing the numbers of conflicts and threats of violence as outsiders do not recognize traditional conflict resolution in land issues. At the end the poor is losing their lands (Maria Backstorm and Jeremy Ironside)
On the other hand Raymond provides information on neoapporaches in human rights field. How in some countries ADR tools go well within the formal legal system and successfully implementing conflict issues.
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?
According to reading it seem like ADR tools are most used in racial and gender-based discrimination cases.
For many grievants of sexual harassment and racial discrimination mediation is suitable for the number of reason:
- To preserve confidentiality.
- To avoid the stress of a hearing.
- To focus on education rather than punishment.
- To restore relations.
- To address ambiguity of evidence.
- To reach faster resolution
On the other hand, Galin, doubts of mediator neutrality in dispute processes. Also. Lopez shares cases from her work experience that people of color prefer to use advocate in mediation instead of relying on just a mediator.