IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections election process are not exempt from rule of law principles. It is also important to ensure that the mechanisms do not perpetuate discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, or other grounds. Indeed, research by practitioner organizations shows that discrimination or corruption in informal justice bodies can tarnish the resolution process and perpetuate human rights abuses. 29 It is crucial to maintain the avenue to the formal EDR process, which can act as a safeguard to fundamental justice principles. Types of ADR in Elections ADR mechanisms in elections can engage a multitude of actors and tackle many diverse issues. The different methods of ADR include conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, with varying degrees of formality. These terms have slightly different meanings in different countries according to the legal system and the language used, and they are sometime used interchangeably in the literature and in practice, and even in countries’ laws. 30 Some legal frameworks are silent on these modes of ADR, despite institutions carrying out ADR in practice. Finally, some countries have set up hybrid systems involving consultation, awareness-raising, and problem-solving mechanisms, although their laws refer to “mediation.” 31 The lack of clarity around the definitions has the potential to cause confusion. However, broadly speaking, ADR types can be classified as follows:  Conciliation and Mediation are voluntary and informal processes in which the disputing parties select a neutral third party (one or more individuals) to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. Mediation encourages a search for the solution by the parties involved in the dispute. Conciliation involves a more active role by the conciliator, including proposing a resolution. Parties are free to accept or reject the proposal of the conciliator.  Arbitration is rare in the electoral context. It is similar to mediation and conciliation in that it is a voluntary process in which a neutral third party is involved in arbitrating the dispute. However, instead of guiding the conversation to help the parties come to a resolution, the arbitrator is presented with the evidence and then makes the final decision, which can be binding or non-binding in its outcome according to what the parties have agreed to in advance. When binding, it is often used by agreement in place of court proceedings, as it has similar characteristics to a judicial decision. 32  Negotiation is a relatively unstructured method of settling disputes in which a third party facilitates communication between parties to reach a voluntary agreement on the issues in dispute, even where the issues do not raise an actionable legal claim. See Wojkowska, 2006; Golub, 2014; International Development Law Organization, 2019. For example, the Kenyan Code of Conduct (Schedule II of the Electoral Act) refers to three modes of ADR— “conciliation, mediation or negotiation”—being available for peace committees to address breaches of the code of conduct. 31 For example, El Salvador and Guatemala. 32 This point is made in the definition of Arbitration in the International IDEA Electoral Justice Handbook, p. 187. Orozco-Henríquez, J. (2010). Electoral justice: The International IDEA handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/electoral-justice-handbook.pdf 29 30 18