Previous 80 / 80 Next

IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Indonesia Isach Zulfikar Karmiadji, Head of Programs Sri Lanka Shehara Athukorola, Legal Officer Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador Georgia Maximo Zaldivar, Regional Director, Americas Keti Maisuradze, Country Director Regina Waugh, Senior Global Advisor, Gender Global Gina Chirillo, Senior Gender Specialist Vasu Mohan, Senior Global Advisor, Conflict, Displacement and Minorities Rights 79

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections: Practitioner Brief

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Election Dispute Resolution

Description: While formal dispute resolution processes in elections are vital to upholding the rule of law, the introduction of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms may be beneficial, particularly in fragile and post-conflict states or new democracies where disputes must be resolved quickly to avoid violence or where there is very low trust in the judiciary. The case studies in this report demonstrate that ADR mechanisms, if designed and implemented effectively, can ensure more accessible and timely resolutions than formal mechanisms at a lower cost. The use of mediation or conciliation for certain types of pre-election disputes can lead to greater community engagement (including of non-traditional actors), promote accessibility, mitigate impunity for electoral violations, and reduce burdens on the courts and the election management body (EMB). IFES' research also highlights that a well-designed and trained ADR body can enhance the role of women and provide a culturally appropriate mechanism for dispute resolution, while preventing and defusing tensions. This report also highlights the potential risks and challenges to ADR, particularly in contexts where the legal framework, mandate, and procedures are unclear. Inadequate training of ADR practitioners can result in mediators behaving in a partisan manner or failing to guard against power imbalances or human rights abuses, which can further increase tensions or erode trust. Finally, a lack of stakeholder awareness on how to access ADR mechanisms may leave the public with the perception that there is no avenue for justice in some communities. Due to the informal nature of ADR mechanisms, EMBs have rarely collected data on the type and number of disputes handled through ADR, creating a challenge for research and a missed opportunity to draw on lessons learned, promote successful initiatives, and build trust in the EMBs’ capacity to address legitimate disputes. This practitioner brief attempts to remedy the lack of information on the use of ADR in elections and presents a series of case studies to highlight lessons from diverse country experiences. This paper also proposes recommendations to improve the design and implementation of ADR in elections.

Language

English

Author(s): Uchechi Anyanwu, Typhaine Roblot, Rebecca Cox

Date: Apr 4, 2023

Primary Documents

IFES ADR Practitioner Brief_Mar 22 (3).pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections: Practitioner Brief

Primary Documents

Notifications