Category: Dispute Resolution
The M-Jirga from Colin Rule
A presentation by Colin Rule, of Online Dispute Resolution fame, on a concept design for a mobile traditional justice platform. The m-Jirga program would mimic an elders council meeting in a town square or mosque, that would hear disputants’ sides of a conflict, then vote and issue a ruling on who will prevail.
The M-Jirga from Colin Rule is a presentation from a few years ago, with an initial sketch of what a mobile-phone based dispute resolution system would look like.
The m-Jirga was proposed for a rural Afghan audience, but wasn’t ultimately implemented. As a concept design, it is a useful starting point. How might we design systems of justice — that lets a person bring a dispute with another, get a chance to advocate her position, and receive an enforceable ruling — that could be accessed on dumb mobile phones or basic smart phones?
And, how might we let people who are disadvantaged in traditional justice systems (likely: young women, minorities, very poor) present their position in semi-anonymous way, so that their typical disadvantage is erased?
Sri Lankan tech researcher & TED fellow Sanjana Hattotuwa has laid out some of the basic capabilities that mobile phones in the field can be used in dispute resolution and rule of law.
Data gathering
- Plotting the GIS coordinates of the disputed territory, including details of the location, resources and details of adjacent territory
- Details of disputants, including audio and video testimonies, multimedia footage and documentation of case details
- The in-field mediator or contact person can make his or her own notes and add them to the case file – through text, multiple answer questions via SMS, audio notes or video recordings
- Rapid entry of key case details, which the mediator can then go back and expand
Real time ODR
- System generated messages can be handed out to disputants to follow up with a voice message system that gives them the status of the case in the vernacular
- Mediators can be informed of similar cases in real time using intelligent comparisons of data and disputes
- GIS boundaries of land can be plotted and sent to regional centres which can print out the maps and hand them over to the disputants to visually aid the process of mediation
- Case details can be semantically linked to provide mediators with expert systems that are able to generate options to help with decision making
- F2F synchronous and asynchronous mediation using mobile video conferring technologies
Offline ODR
- Indexed case histories can feed into knowledge repositories that can be accessed offline, in print or as audio files to help train and build mediation capacities of ADR mediators
- Anecdotal input by mediators can be indexed to create expert system that examine semantic linkages within and between such input to influence options generation – for instance, the family history of a particular disputant, the structural underpinnings to a land dispute which may be linked to loss of face and other observations
- Ability to access thematic or issue based case studies over a given period of time, or examine a particular case against possible options and the probability for resolution based on historical data, or access to case histories in a particular context, region or identity group (ethnic, religious or gender).
- A central repository of information on past and on-going ADR and ODR processes, grouped by issue, region, ethnicity, mode of settlement, mediator etc
Settlement process
- Disputants get vernacular SMS notification of settlement. Those who cannot read also get a voice mail with relevant details. Simple disputes can be resolved on the spot with expert systems that help in options generation for the dispute.
- Video conferencing via mobile phones can aid where disputants are far removed from ADR centres. Mediated voice conferences can aid in settlement processes along with asynchronous video, wherein parties get to see and hear each other’s viewpoints.
- Mobile systems can complement and strengthen traditional face-to-face (F2F) meetings but reducing the need for physical meetings, reserving F2F meetings for the most intractable disputes, facilitating virtual F2F meetings between active disputants and those that have successfully resolved similar disputes in the past in the same region or on the same issue, enable mediators themselves to interact with each other to discuss, transfer knowledge and share information between each other.
A paper on “An Asian Perspective on Online Mediation” puts forward an agenda for making all the advances made in Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) transition to mobile devices. ODR had been desktop-based, but this isn’t relevant for the majority of the world, who do not have reliable access to dekstops, but who are regular users of mobile phones.
Sanaja Hattotuwa & Melissa Conley Tyler put forward some advice on what a Mobile Dispute Resolution system, aimed at Asian Pacific populations would look like:
Build specifically for smaller, more streamlined mobile devices
“ODR systems must treat the smaller form factor of mobile devices as an advantage, creating experiences that are designed to effectively make use of phone keypads and smaller screens, pervasive and user independent standard for data exchange between PC and non-PC devices, expert systems that intelligently manipulate information and deliver it in appropriate ways to users of the system, systems that use voice and video to facilitate virtual face-to-face (F2F) interactions and use internet radio to promote ADR mechanisms and most importantly, augment the capacity of existing ADR providers to engage with the complex socio-political issues that result from protracted conflict and peacebuilding.
Hide Complexity: Make the Tech Look Simple
“In creating new ODR systems for conflict transformation, the emphasis should firmly be on frameworks that hide the complexities of the technology and present users who with a human face for ODR. Such systems will engage communities rather than overwhelm them with sophisticated systems that bear little or no relation to the problems of their daily lives. Systems that are self-effacing and empower communities resolve conflicts on their own stem from a design perspective that is nourished by a recognising and acknowledging the needs of communities on the ground, as opposed to the imposition of high-end systems in a top-down approach.”
Follow the Community’s Needs & Aspirations
A priority is “defining ODR requirements and systems based on needs and priorities that have been expressed by the communities and users themselves, and not just articulated by political stakeholders or traditional power-centre.”
“ODR systems that don’t develop existing local capacities and instead impose architectures that are alien to target communities may well lead to new conflicts which in turn re-ignite dormant emotions, leading to a spiralling vortex of violence that runs counter to the intended goals of ODR itself”
Build ODR into the Existing Community Systems
Also necessary: “Embedding community-based ODR services within existing economic, governance and social structures, while at the same time creating opportunities for communities to use ODR systems to transcend regressive socio-political architectures and create new social contracts.”
The Internet Bar Organization has fielded a proposed design, the Internet Silk Road Initiative, that would use online and mobile tech to provide access to justice & dispute resolution capabilities to Afghanistan.
The project’s website is down now, indicating that perhaps the proposal has been shelved right now. But its ambit is of interest:
“The proposed Internet Silk Road project aims to provide a vitally important service to Afghan communities at a time when the need for clearly defined land tenure is a growing concern for both foreign and domestic interests in the country.
Our goal is to resolve Afghan land disputes by
1. investigating the effective and ineffective aspects of the dispute resolution systems currently in use,
2. collecting evidence related to potential disputes helping to create a harmonized e-registry of land and attendant disputes, and
3. creating an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for land disputes that integrates traditional and formal dispute resolution practices to provide disputants a remedy that is accessible, fair and just.
To be judged a success, the project must gain acceptance both by the populace and the central government, in accordance with IBO’s broader mission of promoting effective rule of law through ADR.”
It would use basic technology to let citizens document their sides of dispute and present it for ADR process. The tech could provide a structure and design to the ADR, guiding the citizens through it. It could also supply a way to collect, store, and share evidence that will be useful in deciding the outcome of ADR.
There are more slides for the proposed project from a USIP November 2011 presentation.
Of course, there is no online information about how this system could be implemented with citizens and with the approval-stamp of the government. The inklings of the project provide one prototype (or perhaps, concept design) that could move the ODR for ATJ (Online Dispute Resolution for Access to Justice) idea space forward.
Sheldon Himelfarb wrote a summary of different mobile-based design interventions for improving quality of life and rule of law in Afghanistan, including a short summary of the ‘aspirational program’ of the Online Dispute Resolution system.
He wrote, “Currently, the promise of this program seems to be mainly in capturing land data in digital form through the use of smart phones in order to convert handwritten and woefully inadequate land records into reliable digital repositories. The actual arbitration via mobile phone of the project is decidedly more problematic. Although a great deal of preparatory work has been done, considerable cultural challenges remain, given Afghanistan’s traditional justice system. Most of the Afghanistan rule-of-law experts who were consulted expressed great skepticism about the willingness of local communities to abide by decisions rendered by officials, however impartial, who are remote and unfamiliar to them”
This commentary indicates the cultural and political barriers that may arise to prevent an ODR for ATJ system.
Dispute resolution mechanisms inside refugee communities can be a model for other resolution systems in non-refugee contexts.
For example, consider the ideas identified in this write-up of design interventions in a Serbian camp in the 1990s, by Divna Persic-Todorovic. In particular, consider in-person and game-based trainings in dispute resolution.
“This article is about the work on interpersonal conflict resolution in refugee camps in Serbia by the MOST group for non-violent conflict resolution. Difficult living conditions in refugee camps (lack of facilities; the necessity to share them) created many interpersonal disagreements. The situation was worsened by the sense of hopelessness that people brought from the places which they had to flee. They shared horrible stories of the war and of failed attempts to make their lives better. This circular motion of pain produced more sorrow.
“To break these dynamics, MOST organized activities in summer camps for refugees to teach people problem solving skills and active listening, promoting more understanding between them. They used such techniques as “Communication Games”, the “Secret Friend” game and workshops with an emphasis on conflict analysis. The “Secret Friend” game created an atmosphere of joy. People were coming up with creative ideas for how to make another person happily surprised. In analyzing their relationships, people were exercising active listening techniques and learned to recognize each others’ needs. Going from there, they tried to create solutions. The author concludes that the work done by MOST produced encouraging results in improving refugee’s relations and their view of life.”
Persic-Todorovic, Divna. Conflict Resolution, Working with Refugees. Conflict Resolution Notes. V. 12, No. 4. April, 1995. Pp. 44-45.