Search
Close this search box.

Justice Dashboard

Justice Dashboard

Search
Close this search box.

MeetingOpening a channel of communication between parties

Judges, mediators, facilitators, and innovators know how difficult it is to bring people in conflict together. Competing interests, interpersonal hostility, or indifference about the problem create barriers to communication that practitioners and the parties themselves struggle to overcome. This can result in an emotionally taxing stalemate, where neither party is willing to reach out.

Why is this a fundamental dispute resolution practice?

Opening a channel for communication is an essential element of conflict resolution because it allows parties to interact and share information in a collaborative way. This channel may be a meeting place or an online platform. What is important is that there is a safe container where both parties are present and willing to engage with one another. Without communication and collaboration, basic human needs to discuss and process what happened, find solutions, and prevent it from happening again cannot be met.

What are the active ingredients of meeting?

A safe, centralised forum for talking.

This can be in-person, online, or even via a surrogate when a meeting between the parties is not appropriate. What matter is that it makes possible centralised information processing and communication about the conflict. 

Strong incentives or motivation to participate.

Parties may be influenced to participate by a number of factors. These may include attitudes, emotions, reputational concerns, social norms, a skilled mediator, the possibility of a default judgment1 being made against them, or the threat of sanctions for non-participation.

What are people actually doing to make this happen?

Parties
Parties are reaching out to one another on an informal basis, responding to an offer for mediation, or appearing in court. They are also determining for themselves whether it is safe or conducive to their well-being to meet with the other party.
Parties
Mediators and facilitators
Mediators and facilitators ​are using their communication skills to invite parties to come to the table. Meeting with each party separately before bringing them together helps. If one or more parties refuses to meet, mediators and facilitators are realising that the conflict may not be yet be “ripe” for negotiation or mediation and trying again at a more strategic time. They are also recognising when it is unsafe or inappropriate for parties to meet face-to-face – for example in physically or emotionally abusive relationships with asymmetric power dynamics.
Mediators and facilitators
Judges and justice leaders
Judges and justice leaders are creating default processes that increase parties’ incentives to meet.
Judges and justice leaders
Innovators
Innovators are creating online platforms that help parties communicate from a distance, at their own pace and with guidance from experts.
Innovators
More about Uganda

What indicators can be used to monitor this practice?

0%
Informational justice
0%
Transaction costs (emotions, time, and money)
0%
Efficiency

What makes meeting difficult?

Behavioral barriers

Communication and coordination may break down in the course of conflict. As a result, parties may resort to competitive (non-cooperative) strategies for addressing conflict, such as fighting, denying, or avoiding. Avoiding the conflict altogether is most attractive to parties who expect big losses from cooperation. As previously mentioned, avoiding may also be appropriate in some cases.

Cost barriers

In order for parties to be incentivised to come together, the net benefits of meeting must outweigh the net benefits of non-cooperative strategies, such as fighting or avoiding the conflict. This means that the costs associated with meeting must not be high.

Submission problem 2

Finding a solution for a justice problem involves at least two parties. While most people will listen to a police officer or a local judge, getting parties to recognize the authority of a less conventional neutral is not easy. One party may choose to ignore the mediator that contacts them. A lawyer might challenge the legitimacy of an online platform to resolve conflict. Mediators and innovators may struggle to identify parties who are willing to cooperate and accept third party advice.

More Resources

  1. Maurits Barendrecht, Growing Justice: Justice Policies and Transaction Costs, Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems (TISCO) Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems (2009)
  2. William Landes and Richard Posner, Adjudication as a Private Good, The Journal of Legal Studies (1979)

Justice Dashboard

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

Contact us

The Hague Institute for
Innovation of Law
Tel: +31 70 762 0700
E-mail: info@hiil.org

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Instagram Youtube

Navigation

© 2024 HiiL
Privacy