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.
It might not be a question of either or. There are pros and cons of either process. The courts can deal with Human rights abuse and as well ensure some structural changes. Without the court, victims of human rights abuse may not see justice as their aggressors may never be made to answer for their crimes. However it's equally true that in some instances courts have not been best place to advance structural change especially as it may be part of the structures and systems that need change. Many times we have seen people express lack of confidence in the courts. Some believe the court don't always favor the poor and minority. On the other hand dealing with human rights issues in private through the ADR techniques is admixture of positive and negative reactions too. First, victims would not go for this option as it tends to shield or protect the violators. However when the people conceive a lack of confidence in the law courts, ADR techniques might be useful albeit much caution. I general I would not promote dealing with human rights in private.
Do you Thinkthat 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?
In this case I would agree with the authors David Turner et al that prevalent ADR techniques such as mediation or conciliation designed and delivered in the manner inaccessible to the targeted groups cannot effectively address racial or gender-based discrimination. Even if they might yield some positive results in stopping some tension in the interim in certain situations, such are often short-lived. This echoes Tracy Raymond's argument that "the settlement of a dispute does not necessarily equate to resolution of the conflict.” Some of the criticisms raised against these techniques in the prevalent paradigm are very significant. It is thus necessary that the first step before using these techniques would be to educate prospective mediators in skills of structural analysis to enable them be conscious of the impact of systemic and power oppression on the victims and their relatedness to the conflicts. It might be very helpful also to use people from within the marginalized group as mediators. An example of this is the recent incident in Fergusson Missouri, USA where the killing of a black teenager by a white police officer resulted into race-charged violent conflict. It took the introduction of a respected black police officer from the community to get the protesting group to dialogue with the government on the way forward.