Suchergebnisse

About 3,500 Darfuri male (and a few female) asylum seekers live in Israel. The majority are 25 to 40 years old. Older men, including village and community dignitaries, stand little chance of surviving the brutal trek.In Darfur, where most inhabitants live in small villages, inter‐ and intracommunal conflicts are traditionally resolved through the customary justice process of Judiya. But in Israel, Darfuri asylum seekers no longer reside with their kin groups (villages, tribes, clans); instead they often cohabit with asylum seekers from other tribes, clans, and villages, living in crowded conditions, mostly in the poor south side of Tel Aviv—a situation that gives rise to multiple small conflicts.In the absence of their familiar tribal structure, dignitaries, and other interveners, the refugees have no access to the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms they have grown up with. Furthermore, these asylum seekers avoid bringing their conflicts to the attention of the Israeli authorities, for fear of endangering their asylum petitions. The result is that this community finds itself trying to cope with difficult, intracommunal, conflict‐rich conditions, without being able to use either traditional conflict resolution mechanisms or local formal justice processes.The response of the Darfuri asylum seekers community to this circumstance has been to develop their own multitier, quasi‐customary intracommunal dispute resolution mechanism. This new mechanism combines elements of their traditional, Darfur‐based processes, along with newly constructed modifications designed to compensate for the missing elements (e.g., lack of village elders) and make use of available resources (e.g., young community activists).This article employs analysis of multiple interviews and review of relevant literature to identify and describe the unique, informal dispute resolution mechanism that the Darfuri community developed in Israel.Insights developed in this article may help community activists, municipalities, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, and other individuals and organizations in understanding and facilitating alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within similarly structured and similarly affected displaced persons and asylum seeker communities around the world.

The post The Energy Charter Treaty and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

AI developments and their potential impact on society have dominated the public debate in recent years. This has not been different in the legal field, where many hope that AI could bring about disruptive change in an area of society that has until today proven to be largely insulated against technological developments. The legal system produces a massive amount of data (legal decisions, lawyers' briefs, etc.), which, through the use of AI techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning, could be harnessed and instrumentalized for several different purposes. The image that has captured the imagination is that of the robot judge, dispending swift and impartial justice without human intervention. Legal conflicts, however, decide the lives and livelihoods of people, and these high stakes explain why the administration of justice is surrounded by fundamental procedural rights. The robot judge is today far from reality, but AI is increasingly finding its way into the legal system and its use as a (crude) dispute resolution mechanism is no longer unimaginable. This contribution discusses the use of AI systems within the legal field as a means for dispute resolution. It briefly touches upon existing applications and the possible advantages, but focuses mainly on the many challenges that the interplay between AI and dispute resolution poses in light of fundamental procedural rights. It concludes with a discussion of the European regulatory response to this new phenomenon.

This article examines the Constitution-making dispute mechanism in relation to the making of the 2010 of Kenya. What forcefully triggered the process of constitution-making was the 2007-2008 post-election violence which was brought to an end by the efforts of the Kofi-Annan dialogue and reconciliation initiatives. Of the several issues which required urgent attention so as to restore peace and order, the central item was the commencement of constitutional reforms which had stalled in the past. While the relevant statutory infrastructure in form of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act 2008 was established, the Act failed to address the manner in which disputes arising from the process of constitution-making would be settled in spite that at the time, the judiciary was generally an appendage of the executive. Later, an amendment to the Constitution was made which established the ad hoc Interim Independent Constitution Dispute Resolution Court (IICDRC). Notwithstanding the political climate then prevailing, there was no haste in the operationalization of the Court. After the Court commenced its work, it made some decisions which this paper considers a grave misdirection of the law thus denying itself an opportunity to fully determine the legitimacy of the draft constitution and thereby the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. The paper recommends that dispute settlement mechanisms and related matters should be fully integrated in constitution-making or reform enterprise. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p727

Environmental problems have occurred in the global scope, both developed and developing countries. Environmental problems are not only problems of developed countries or industrialized countries including Indonesia. Efforts to overcome environmental problems in developing countries have no other choice but to carry out development. Without the level of development, people will decline, and the environment will be increasingly damaged. Development must still be carried out without damaging the environment. This balance must be maintained in order to preserve the environment. Indonesia has been paying attention to environmental management since 1972. Settlement of environmental disputes through litigation does not produce many results. Dispute resolution through non-litigation channels assumes that dispute resolution through litigation results in very disappointing results. This study wants to conduct a study related to the implementation of Government Regulation No. 54 of 2000 concerning Service Providers for Environmental Dispute Resolution Services Outside the Court and find obstacles and solutions in resolving environmental disputes out of court. The implementation of Government Regulation No. 54 of 2000 at the central government level has established a service provider institution based on the Decree of the State Minister of the Environment Number 77 of 2003 concerning the Establishment of an Out-of-court Environmental Dispute Resolution Service Provider (LPJP2SLH) at the Ministry of the Environment, but its performance has not yet been felt. Abstrak Masalah lingkungan telah terjadi dalam lingkup global, regional maupun nasional baik negara maju maupun negara berkembang. Masalah lingkungan bukan hanya masalah negara maju atau negara industri namun juga pada negara berkembang termasuk Indonesia. Upaya mengatasi permasalahan lingkungan di negara berkembang tidak ada pilihan lain selain melakukan pembangunan. Pembangunan tetap harus dilakukan tanpa merusak lingkungan. Keseimbangan ini harus dijaga agar ...

In 2010, Kenya ratified a Constitution that formalized its traditional dispute resolution mechanisms ("TDRMs"). In 2016, the legislature extended TDRM formalization to community land through the Community Land Act. While these mechanisms give greater voice to communities, they are implemented through local leaders, usually limited to male elders, and do not adequately represent marginalized groups. During a typical land dispute, it is the elders that resolve the matter because they have the respect of the community, and the best memory for the boundaries of the land. They will call a "baraza" or gathering in which community members will have a chance to voice their opinions and furnish relevant evidence before the elders make a decision. In practice, this means that the new laws run the risk of formalizing not only TDRMs, but also unequal participation in these important mechanisms. While this Note focuses on the gendered impact of TDRMs, disparate access to TDRMs has a particular impact on unmarried women, youth, and other marginalized groups. The formalization of TDRMs is important because land is crucial to Kenyans: it is "not merely a factor of production; it is first and foremost, the medium which defines and binds together social and spiritual relations within and across generations."

Our chairman has indicated that we first should consider between a
conflict and a dispute. Conflict is the broader term. Conflicts mostly
contain one or more legal disputes, resolving those would help resolve the
conflict.