IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections ADR mechanisms can also increasingly be found in other parts of the world. However, little information on the use of ADR in electoral or political processes has been collected and publicized in the last 10 years since GUARDE was published. In addition, election observers do not systematically include ADR mechanisms within their observation methodologies, although some observer missions assess them on an ad hoc basis. As a result, although interviews with practitioners and former and current election officials conducted by IFES for the purpose of this paper provided a good deal of fruitful information, there is a clear lack of systematic data on ADR across electoral cycles. It is particularly difficult to find information about successful uses of ADR. One hypothesis is that the successful resolution of disputes is marked by the absence of violence, threats, intimidation, or other illegal campaign activities. This makes it hard to assess what further conflict might have occurred had the disputes not been resolved, and therefore difficult to measure success. Nonetheless, systematic monitoring of ADR mechanisms and their outcomes would produce valuable insights. The popularity of ADR is not unique to election disputes. In 2019, the International Development Law Organization reported that “Recurring estimates suggest non-state actors, including customary, traditional and religious leaders, address 80 to 90 per cent of legal disputes in developing, fragile and post-conflict states.” 11 Several organizations have produced guidelines and toolkits on mediation practices and ADR, although they are not specific to elections. 12 While research and technical assistance in election disputes has primarily focused on formal EDR processes, it is important to analyze how informal justice mechanisms operate and how they interact with the formal justice process during an election. A better understanding of these processes will help all stakeholders engage effectively with customary and informal justice, in line with Sustainable Development Goal 16 on access to justice for all. 13 This Practitioner Brief attempts to make an initial contribution to filling the research gap on the use of ADR mechanisms in elections. It draws on lessons learned from ADR programs globally, collected through desk review and a series of key informant interviews with election practitioners, EMB members and officials, judges, experts, and local partners around the world. IFES also collected lessons learned during an in-depth consultation session with judges from the Africa Electoral Jurisprudence Network in July 2022 and secured peer reviews from experienced practitioners at Bawaslu in 11 International Development Law Organization. (2019, January 30). Practitioner brief: Engagement with customary and informal justice systems. https://www.idlo.int/publications/practitioner-brief-engagement-customary-and-informal-justice-systems 12 The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of the Justice Working Group on Mediation developed a Mediation Development Toolkit. The Guidelines emphasize the principles of equality, impartiality, and neutrality, and the importance of raising public awareness of the benefits of mediation. 13 Pantuliano, S. (2021, December 8). High-level dialogue on customary and informal justice and sustainable development goal 16+ [Webinar]. Overseas Development Institute, https://odi.org/en/events/high-level-dialogue-on-customary-and-informal-justice-and-sdg16/ 10