ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN PAKISTAN

Burhan & Associates has been providing alternative dispute resolution services in Pakistan since 2010. We offer a wide range of services to the legal community, insurance industry, private businesses and government agencies across the country, and our team of professional arbitrators, mediators and training staff are here to help At Burhan & Associates, we provide a variety of services to help resolve disputes, including arbitration, mediation, settlement conferences, neutral fact-finding, statutory discharge hearings, grievance-based hearing procedures, mini-trials, class action administration, dispute resolution system design and consulting, negotiation skills, conflict management and mediation training, and discovery management.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADR APPROACHES

Though various methods of community justice - such as negotiated settlement, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration - have different qualities, they all share a few key features that distinguish them from the formal judicial process. These features allow them to reach development goals in a different way than judicial systems.

INFORMALITY

ADR procedures are typically less formal than judicial procedures, which can be appealing to certain individuals. Without extensive written records, rules of evidence, or formal pleadings, the rules of procedure are more flexible in ADR. This lack of formality is essential for making dispute resolution more accessible to those who are scared or unwilling to participate in more official processes. It can also lower the time and expense associated with resolving disputes. Many systems function without any formal representation.

APPLICATION OF EQUITY

ADR programmes are designed to promote equity rather than the rule of law. Each case is adjudicated by a third party or negotiated between disputants themselves, depending on principles that appear equitable in the given situation. ADR procedures are unlikely to set a legal precedent or bring about changes in law or social standards. However, they are more likely to achieve efficient settlements. Although there are some potential drawbacks to using an informal approach to justice, they may not be significant in cultures where a large number of people do not have any access to the formal legal system. In addition, the formal legal system can address some of these concerns by making sure that people who are involved in a dispute have access to formal legal protections if the informal system does not provide a fair resolution, and by looking at the outcomes of the informal system to make sure they are consistent and fair.

Making / Spreading Explicit Images or Videos

DIRECT COMMUNICATION & PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE DISPUTANTS

Some other key characteristics of ADR systems include that they allow for greater direct participation by disputants in the process and in designing settlements. This usually happens through more direct dialogue and for reconciliation between parties, potentially with higher levels of confidentiality because public records are not typically kept. These systems also have less power to subpoena information and less direct power of enforcement but offer greater flexibility in designing creative settlements. Even in the United States, where alternative dispute resolution procedures have been utilized and studied more extensively than in most developing countries, the influence of these traits remains unclear. Many contend, however, that negotiated and mediated settlements achieve higher levels of compliance and satisfaction than court-ordered rulings. Higher reported rates of compliance and satisfaction appear to be due to disputants' participation in the settlement choice, the potential for reconciliation, and the flexibility in settlement design.

GOALS AND POSSIBLE USES OF ADR

ADR systems are designed to achieve a plethora of objectives, some being enhancing the administration of justice and resolving specific conflicts, while others being tied to different development goals like economic restructuring or community management of tensions and disputes. For example, if an AID mission's goal is to focus on improving the rule of law, then finding an effective and consensual way to resolve land disputes is key, as land conflict can endanger a country's social and economic stability In the same way that judicial delays or corruption might prevent foreign investment and economic restructuring, having efficient dispute resolution procedures could be important to achieving economic development goals.

THE LIMITATIONS OF ADR

While ADR programmes can have many benefits for different types of development projects, they can actually be harmful to achieving particular goals that are connected with rule of law projects.

DEFINING, REFINING, ESTABLISHING, & PROMOTING A LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs have many benefits that legal procedures don't - they don't establish precedent, develop legal norms, encourage the uniform application of legal principles, or establish a wide community or national standards.

ADDRESS SYSTEMIC UNFAIRNESS, DISCRIMINATION & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

ADR programmes are not equipped to deal with systematic issues like unfairness, discrimination, or human rights violations

RESOLVE SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC PENALTY

Alternative Dispute Resolution agreements do not improve public safety, because people are not educated about them, and there are no repercussions for breaking the agreement

RESOLVE ISSUES INVOLVING DISPUTANTS OR INTERESTED PARTIES WHO REFUSE OR ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ADR PROCESS

ADR should not be used to resolve issues between multiple parties when some of those parties or stakeholders are not engaged. Alternative Dispute Resolution may inhibit other judicial reform efforts.

CONCLUSION

ADR programmes can have a positive impact on different areas associated with development, such as the rule of law. When ADR programmes are well-designed and carried out in the appropriate conditions, they can help with court reform, making it easier for people to access justice, make those who use the programme happier with the results, reduce delays and lower the cost of sorting out arguments. ADR programmes can also be useful for training community leaders, encouraging people to get involved in civic duties, helping communities to manage change smoothly and reducing tension to prevent or resolve development conflicts informal ADR systems have a lot of advantages. They're less expensive and often less scary for populations who don't have a lot of power or money. This results in more people being able to get justice, which is especially important for poor people. These systems are also less expensive for the state and may be more easily put in areas where underserved populations can benefit. However, we don't have enough data yet to know exactly how successful ADR is at enhancing access or how much it costs in comparison to formal legal procedures. Even though we can't measure the impact perfectly, it's still clear that ADR has a positive impact. ADR programmes can be beneficial in many ways, but they cannot replace formal judicial systems. Judicial systems are required to establish a legal code, address fundamental social inequality, offer governmental sanction, and serve as a court of last resort for disputes that cannot be handled by voluntary, informal means. Even under ideal conditions, the best-designed ADR programmes require substantial management and are labour-intensive. There are a few issues to consider when thinking about the potential consequences of ADR. Some people might be afraid that ADR could lead to citizens giving up on conventional, community-based dispute resolution methods. However, this research found several examples of ADR programs that not only worked well with previous informal methods, but also improved them. Second, while ADR programmes cannot resolve disagreements between parties that have vastly different levels of power, they can be created to improve class discrepancies; for example, third parties can be used to balance out inequalities between disputants. Third, there is no clear connection between ADR efficacy and national income distribution. In economies that are as different as the United States, Bangladesh, South Africa, and Argentina, ADR programmes provide essential social functions.

Alternative Dispute Resolution