Mobile Dispute Resolution – Justice Innovation

Mobile Dispute Resolution, not Desktop Dispute Resolution

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.”

Mobile Dispute Resolution for Access to Justice in Afghanistan

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.