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
believe that the court and ADR techniques should be applied in the dealing with
human rights issues. It may be difficult for me to say which one is better than
the other. Which one to apply would depend largely on circumstances and issues.
The main concern in each of these situations should be to ensure justice and
peace. Litigation is necessary but it may not end a conflict. I believe it true
that dispute settlement through the court does not necessarily result in the
resolution of the conflict at the base. Also any settlement that does not
ensure justice to the victim may not last.
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?
Racial and gender-related discrimination in most cases
are often part of the systemic injustices of the status quo. Sometimes mediation
and conciliation have not been useful in addressing these issues. It is obvious
as the week's readings especially Turner and groupsuggest, the
mainstream type of mediation or conciliation rather complicate the issues.
Using Nigeria as example, these are the experiences of many from the minority
ethnic groups in various times of ethnic-related conflicts. Representative from
the minority have in many instances abandoned conciliation processes alleging
been doubly marginalized by mediations defined, constructed and delivered by
the dominant ethnic groups. Unless this is given due attention and mediators
become humble, and skillful those victimized by these categories of oppressive
systems would be slow to avail themselves of mediation opportunities.