Alternative dispute resolution methods in Nordic countries and Ethiopia

BY ELIAS MESERET and J. ADDISU

Each country has its own way of resolving a dispute that arises between different communities or people that live within it. And it is apparent that there are institutions and mechanisms that will help to achieve these goals in most countries: whether community or government based. It goes without saying that this constitutes one of humanity’s most ancient and important institutions since it has been serving as a means of dealing with everyday disputes that would escalate into severe and sometimes catastrophic stages unless they are dealt with due care.

Whenever someone speaks about dispute resolution methods, what often comes to many peoples’ mind is the wide experience and use of such methods by Nordic countries. Comprising Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, this region is famous for embracing mediation principles for generations and for brokering international peace processes, notably by Norway.

Dr. Dag Hareide, a Norwegian national who is internationally known for researching about mediation and has written a book about the issue, was in Addis Ababa this week to share his experience to his Ethiopian counterparts and find out ways on how ‘traditional’ or ‘customary’ ways of dispute resolution methods could be used to solve problems that arise in modern times. Accordingly, he gave a half-day lecture and briefing, along with Dr. Alula Pankhrust, about the major issues involved in mediation processes on March 27, 2008 at the Sheraton Hotel. The lecture was organized by Inter-Africa Group (IAG), a regional organization founded in 1989 in Addis Ababa.   

According to Dr. Hareide, Nordic countries have witnessed a “silent revolution” in conflict mediation in the past 20 years whereby they have been able to extensively use such principles in criminal, civil, family, commercial and other cases.

“Mediation is a very old method of dispute resolution mechanism in Nordic countries. For example, even before the 16th century, there used to be a meeting place for farmers in Norway called ‘Tinget’ where they sat and discussed issues of their dispute and solve it accordingly,” Dr. Hareide explained. He added that the current mechanisms of dispute resolution techniques are derived from the ancient ones.

What was most striking from the Norwegian’s lecture was the way he translated the word ‘conflict’ and his expression of  how the state and its agents were and are ‘stealing the conflicts from the public’ “Conflict is more than an disagreement. It too necessarily does not mean fighting or engaging in war. It could also come in the form of tension between ideas. This is a normal human behavior and we cannot live without it. It often plays pivotal roles to bring justice, change, equality, freedom and even development,” Dr. Hareide remarked.

So, he argues that the public should not be deprived of its conflicts and should be allowed to deal with them by itself. The facts that the parties will choose their mediators with agreement, the process is voluntary, it is based on principles of honesty and is confidential, its aim is reconciliation, it is much more efficient and effective and that it is flexible are the major advantages of using mediation principles, according to the Norwegian lecturer.

On his part, Dr. Alula Pankhrust, an Anthropology lecturer at Addis Ababa University (AAU), explains what Ethiopians use to solve their disputes customarily. In a dramatic explanation of detailed information on how each region of the country has managed to deal with such cases, he underscored that Ethiopia is one of the countries in the world with a rich tradition of customary dispute resolution methods.

He has written a book entitled “Ethiopia at a justice crossroads” about the issue and also presented at the lecture a film that featured the mediation process made to reconcile the Arobe and Borena tribes in the Oromia region.

“Too many loads of cases are presently found in courts and it is unquestionable whether we should resort to mediation processes or not. Therefore, mediation, rather than being an alternative method, should become a mainstream method to deal with our problems,” Dr. Alula said.

While he mentioned the accessibility, timeliness, efficiency, legitimacy, restorative capacity, participatory procedures, predictable outcomes, community based sanctions levied and building community cohesion as the main attributes of using such mechanisms, he also went further to explain its drawbacks.

“Many people cite the gender inequality observed while dealing with such issues as the main problem. Non-compliance with human right standards, undermining of individual responsibility, the inability to get procedural fairness and lack of uniformity are the major drawbacks,” he confessed.

Admitting that such problems exist while adhering to customary dispute resolution mechanisms, he explained that in some regions women are allowed to actively participate in such process widely, for example in the Afar region. Lacking convincing terms as it is, it stood as one of the fundamental problems faced when trying to use such methods to troubleshoot problems.

Asked by participants whether he thinks there should be a boundary in which the state and customary mechanisms should exercise their jurisdiction, Dr. Alula answered that he is against it.

“The main thing should be understanding the issues involved in it and working to achieve the same end. Creating boundaries won’t work, I think,” Dr. Alula concluded.