Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of South Pacific Law |
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES[1]
GRAHAM HASSALL[2]
“Dispute Resolution” takes place in each and every culture. Its modern forms are so expansive that Goldberg, Green and
Sander refer to a “disputing universe” and suggest taxonomy of procedures based on the “primary processes”
of negotiation, mediation, and adjudication. We understand from the “dispute resolution continuum” that practices range
from those in which the parties retain full control of the process, to those in which the parties yield control to one or more third
parties. In each jurisdiction the extent of formal participation in dispute process by state agencies varies in accordance with tradition,
culture, and need. In the past several decades formal dispute mechanisms, including judicial, have become open to a range of additional
practices.
Most Pacific societies are familiar with the ideas of “alternative dispute resolution” without necessarily being familiar
with the term. As Vanuatu Chief Justice Lunabek informed a conference on conflict resolution held in Vila in 2000:
“ADR is not a new concept to Pacific Island jurisdictions and, in particular, to Vanuatu. It is, in fact, consistent with traditional methods of dispute resolution that predated the introduction of the formalised system of justice”[3]
Anthropological investigation has contributed considerable information on such elements of customary dispute resolution as scope, structure and process, duration, visibility, location, desired outcomes, reasoning, remedies, standing (to participate), and patterns of communication.[4] Traditional systems of customary law often incorporated a sliding scale for conflict resolution: different approaches were applied to conflicts inside the village and the kin-group, in distinction to conflicts with others: the former were solved through ceremonies (including sorcery), compensation and exchange; the latter, through endemic warfare.[5] For many groups, moreover, the exercise is one of conflict management rather than resolution:
...no victory was every complete, no defeat ever final.[6]
The resolution of conflict is described as being "deeply embedded in the culture" in many societies, so that its structures remained unobtrusive. Black, writing of the Tobi of Micronesia, reports:
On Tobi, disputes were generally acknowledged and managed in an extremely indirect fashion. The expression of overt conflict, or even its direct acknowledgement, was resisted because of the Tobian truism that to do so would bring on disaster by endangering the essential web of relationships of mutual support (particularly in the exchange of labour and food) which bound everyone to everyone else. Tobian techniques of conflict management, as might be expected in light of the foregoing, also tended to be very inexplicit and to operate in rather indirect and subtle ways.[7]
Among the Dou Donggo, similarly,
There is a strong feeling that disputes, conflicts, and misbehaviours are matters for the community to deal with internally. There is a strong disposition to avoid washing dirty linen in public, and a general reluctance to involve authorities from outside the community.[8]
Constraints on conflict in Papua New Guinea, particularly, include the use of reciprocity, a principle of major significance in Melanesia,
both substantively (items) and symbolically (rituals). This includes gift exchanges between groups (e.g. pigs, bride-price, and now
money and beer) as well as aggressive retaliation. Such reciprocity provides appropriately-scaled balancing mechanisms that do militate
against excessive or cumulative imbalance and violence which could negate survival viability.[9]
Legal anthropological investigation has reported, also, on the effectiveness of court systems. Chalmers and Paliwala point out that
the form of law and legal processes are much less rigid in many customary societies in comparison with Western law.[10] Rules of law are often stated in the form of argument. The forms of dispute settlement give much greater emphasis to what the parties
wish - in particular the need to come to amicable settlement of disputes between people and groups.
It is also the case, on the other hand, that there are different levels of awareness of alternative dispute resolution procedures
within jurisdiction across the Pacific region. An initial inquiry suggests that in some smaller jurisdictions, such as Nauru for
instance, there is little or no awareness of ADR practices.[11] In Tonga there are no common mediation or arbitration practices or mechanisms, and only on rare occasions have arbitration provisions
been included commercial contracts.[12]
There are, on the other hand, several Pacific jurisdictions - notably Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu - in which
ADR processes are known to the courts, and to other state agencies charged with upholding the rule of law. Labour officers throughout
the region have statutory obligations to try to resolve disputes through mediation.[13] The Fiji Human Rights Commission has conducted conciliation sessions to address issues of discrimination.
Scholarship on dispute resolution in Pacific societies is still discussing the ways in which traditional forms of conflict resolution
remain valid and effective in the present day. There has been a very active grass-roots mediation movement in Papua New Guinea and
Bougainville.[14] It is interesting to note, however, the similarity in fundamental approaches to mediation presented in the work of, for example,
the mediation and restorative justice training offered at Divine Word University in Madang, Papua New Guinea, and the work of Christopher
Moore.[15] The program at Divine Word University, for instance, offers a nine-step mediation process:
This “mediation path” is very similar to that taught world-wide, and the cultural content of the mediation process is
evidently woven into the manner in which the process is carried out. The “Talanoa” interactive dialogue process being
advocated by Sitiveni Halapua, Director of the East West Centre’s Pacific Islands Development Program, seeks a less formalised
and possibly more ‘intuitive’ approach. It has been used in Fiji, Tonga, and Hawaii to bring leaders together in an
effort to solve political and public policy disputes. To date there has been no assessment, however, of the effectiveness of the
approach in resolving the difficult issues facing the parties, at least in Fiji. In Tonga, on the other hand, Dr. Halapua’s
facilitation is credited with resolving a dispute between public servants and the government that had lasted 44 days and thwarted
the hopes of other mediation efforts.[16]
Mediation and ADR can be regarded as one facet of the larger projects ‘peace-building’ and ‘conflict reduction/prevention’,
which are gaining attention at global and regional levels, with a follow-on effect for the Pacific Island countries. There are,
for instance, the “Global Project for the Prevention of Armed Conflict” organised by the European Centre for Conflict
Prevention (2003-2005), and a 2005 “Workshop on Peace-Building and Conflict Prevention in the Pacific Islands” organized
jointly by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the United Nations Department of Political Affairs (Nadi, 25-27 April 2005).
There are now numerous ‘conflict monitoring projects’ around the globe: International crisis group; Conciliation Resources,
and others. Human Rights organizations, particularly Amnesty International, have contributed to alerting the international community
of Pacific conflicts.[17] UNIFEM is developing “early warning” capacities, beginning with Solomon Islands.[18] Of the NGOs, perhaps Conciliation Resources is most familiar with Pacific conflicts. It has published a comprehensive study of the
Bougainville conflict, and is a partner to the Citizens’ Constitutional Forum. The Pacific Concerns Resource Centre has recently
undertaken a feasibility study for the establishment of a “Pacific Conflict Transformation Network.”[19]
In early 2005 the Peace and Conflict Studies program at USP surveyed the extent of current practices in ADR in Pacific states, in
preparation for the convening of the 3rd Asia Pacific Mediation Forum in Fiji in 2006. The findings of this survey, covering ADR
and mediation training; court annexed and non-court annexed mediation; and provision for the use of ADR in legislation, are provided
in point-form below.
ADR/MEDIATION TRAINING
Pacific
University of the South Pacific
Fiji
Ecumenical Centre for Research Education and Advocacy
Guam
Hawaii
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
High Court
University of Queensland ACPACS
Solomon Islands Development Trust
Vanuatu
COURT-ANNEXED ADR
Federated States of Micronesia
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Vanuatu
Supreme Court
NON-JUDICIAL ADR
Fiji
Fiji Employers Federation
Fiji Human Rights Commission
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Department of Labour
ADR IN LEGISLATION
Fiji
Marshall Islands
Papua New Guinea
Vanuatu
PROMOTION OF RECONCILIATION
20. The court may promote reconciliation and encourage and facilitate the settlement in an amicable way, according to custom or otherwise, of any proceedings for an offence of a personal or private nature punishable by imprisonment for less than 2 years or by a fine only, on terms of payment of compensation or other terms approved by the court, and may thereupon order the proceedings to be stayed or terminated.
OTHER CONFLICT RESOLUTION INITIATIVES
Pacific
Fiji
Ministry for national Reconciliation and Unity
Papua New Guinea
UNDP
PEACE Foundation Melanesia (PFM)
Solomon Islands
Department of Justice and Legal Affairs
UNDP
Tonga
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chalmers, D. R. C., & A.H. Paliwala. (1984). Constitutional Law and Legal Control of Administrative Action. Introduction to the Law in Papua New Guinea. D. R. C. Chalmers, & A.H. Paliwala, Law Book Publishers: 105-151.
Howley, P. (2002). Breaking Spears and Mending Hearts: Peacemakers and Restorative Justice in Bougainville. Leichardt, Zed Books and Federation Press.
Howley, P. (no date). The Melanesian Way of Mediation and Restorative Justice. Madang, Divine Word University.
Lunabek, V. (2003). Restorative Programs in the Formal Justice System of Vanuatu. A Kind of Mending: Restorative Justice in the Pacific Islands. S. Dinnen. Canberra, Pandanus Books.
Moore, C. W. (1991). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Tagicakibau, E. G. (2004). A Survey to Determine the Feasibility of a Pacific Conflict Transformation Network. Suva, Pacific Concerns
Resource Centre.
UNIFEM (2005). Monitoring Peace and Conflict in the Solomon Islands. Gendered Early Warning Report No. 1. Honiara, UNIFEM.
[1] This research note arose from a presentation made to an Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop organized by the Federal Court of Australia at the Tanoa Plaza, Suva, 8 – 10 March 2005. I am grateful to research support given by Shamim Kazemi.
[2] Professor of Governance, Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance, University of the South Pacific Suva, Fiji Islands. [email protected].
[3] Lunabek, V. (2003). Restorative Programs in the Formal Justice System of Vanuatu. A Kind of Mending: Restorative Justice in the Pacific
Islands. S. Dinnen. Canberra, Pandanus Books.
[4] Groves, for example, documented conflict resolution customs in Papua and New Guinea. In one report on court sessions on Tabar which
appeared to a European “to waste much time”, Groves wrote “...a single case sometimes occupies some hours. But
from the natives' point of view the proceedings are valuable, and the time not wasted. The air is cleared, and a feeling of satisfaction
is produced just because the whole matter has been brought to public notice” (Groves, Settlement of Disputes, 503).
[5] Aarin Podoloefsky, “Contemporary Warfare in the New Guinea Highlands”, Ethnology, 23:2, 1984, 74.
[6] Peter W. Black, “Surprised by Common Sense: Local Understandings and the Management of Conflict on Tobi, Republic of Belau’ in Kevin Avruch, Peter Black and Joseph Scimecca (eds.), Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991), 149.
[7] Peter W. Black, “Surprised by Common Sense: Local Understandings and the Management of Conflict on Tobi, Republic of Belau”,
in Kevin Avruch, Peter Black and Joseph Scimecca (eds.), Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991), 148.
[8] Peter Just, “Conflict Resolution and Moral Community among the Dou Donggo”, in Kevin Avruch, Peter Black and Joseph Scimecca (eds.), Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991), 109.
[9] K.J. Pataki-Schweizer, “Interethnic Conflict and Aggression: A Melanesian Datum”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12, 1988, 404.
[10] Chalmers, D. R. C., & A.H. Paliwala, 'Constitutional Law and Legal Control of Administrative Action' Introduction to the Law
in Papua New Guinea. D. R. C. Chalmers & A.H. Paliwala, Law Book Publishers, 1984) 105-151.
[11] Phone conversation, Ministry of Justice, Nauru, , 16 February 2005.
[12] Phone conversation, Tonga Law Society, Nuku’alofa, 16 February 2005.
[13] Email, Anita Jowitt [jowitt_a@vanuatu..usp.ac.fj], Lecturer, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 16 February 2005.
[14] Howley, P. (2002). Breaking Spears and Mending Hearts: Peacemakers and Restorative Justice in Bougainville. Leichardt, Zed Books and
Federation Press.
[15] Howley, P. (n.d.). The Melanesian Way of Mediation and Restorative Justice. Madang: Divine Word University. Moore, C. W. (1991). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
[16] “Tonga – Strike Over: PACNEWS”, PACNEWS 1: Monday, 5 September 2005.
[17] Citizens’ Constitutional Forum; Pacific Concerns Resource Centre; Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education and Advocacy; Fem’Link
Pacific; Fiji Council of Social Services; Fiji Human Rights Commission; Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre; Institute of Justice and
Applied Legal Studies; Interfaith Search Fiji; National Council of Women Fiji; NGO Coalition on Human Rights; Pacific Foundation
for the Advancement of Women; Pacific Islands Association of NGOs; Pacific Islands Forum; Pacific Network on Globalization; and Women’s
Action for Change.
[18] UNIFEM (2005). Monitoring Peace and Conflict in the Solomon Islands. Gendered Early Warning Report No. 1. Honiara, UNIFEM.
[19] Tagicakibau, E. G. (2004). A Survey to Determine the Feasibility of a Pacific Conflict Transformation Network. Suva, Pacific Concerns
Resource Centre.
[20] Email, Villiame Bokini Naliva [[email protected]], LLM student, New Zealand, 17 February 2005 (on file with author).
[21] Email, Villiame Bokini Naliva [[email protected]], LLM student, New Zealand, 17 February 2005.
[22] Meeting, Ministry for National Reconciliation and Unity, Suva, 17.02.2005.
[23] “GUAM: Leaders discuss conflict resolution alternatives”, Pacific Beat, 28 April 2005, online at <http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/s1355508.htm>.
[24] Email, Finin, Gerard [[email protected]], Deputy Director, Pacific Islands Development Program (PIDP) East-West Center, 18
February 2005.
[25] Phone conversation, PNG Studies Department, Divine Word University, 18 February 2005.
[26] Phone conversation, Registrar of High Court, Solomon Islands, 18 February 2005.
[27] Email, Natascha Spark [[email protected]], 18 February 2005; Phone conversation, Nadja Alexander, Director of ADR and Practice, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of
Queensland, 18 February 2005.
[28] “...After each course, participants are asked to assess the usefulness or not of the training. Without exception every
group has found the information, exercises and course insights most useful to their lives. After only a few days
of training of one group of policemen, for instance, a delegation of their wives demanded (that's the word used, demanded)
that they too be given the same course. When asked why they wanted to undergo the same training, one of them said “We want
to know what changed our husbands so much!) When I heard that I knew we were on to something worth while.” John Roughan,
email, 11 May 2005.
[29] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005
[30] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[31] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005
[32] Phone conversation, Department of Justice Secretariat, Palikir, Pohnpei, 16 February.
[33] Phone conversation, Chief Justice, Palikir, Pohnpei, 18 February 2005.
[34] Email, Villiame Bokini Naliva <[email protected]>, LLM student, New Zealand, 17 February 2005.
[35] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[36] Phone conversation, Fiji Employer’s Federation, 17 February 2005.
[37] Fiji Human Rights Commission, Complaints Section Procedure Policy.
[38] Fiji Human Rights Commission, Complaints Section Procedure Policy.
[39] Email, Shaireen Begum [[email protected]], Participant, Suva, 17 February 2005.
[40] Email, Maiava Visekota Peteru <[email protected]>, Lawyer, Private Practice, Samoa, 24 February 2005.
[41] Phone conversation, Ombudsman, Solomon Islands, 16 February 2005.
[42] Phone conversation, President of Vanuatu Law Society, Ozols and Associates, Port Vila, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[43] Email, Anita Jowitt [[email protected]], Lecturer, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[44] Phone conversation, Carl Ingram, Chief Justice, Marshall Islands, 16 February 2005; MIRC Title 30 Civil Remedies and Special Proceedings, chap. 3. “Arbitration”.
[45] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[46] Email, Ted Hill <[email protected]>, USP Law School, Vanuatu, 18 February 2005.
[47] Phone conversation, Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Vanuatu, 17 February 2005.
[48] Email, Finin, Gerard [[email protected]], Deputy Director, Pacific Islands Development Program (PIDP) East-West Center, 18 February 2005.
[49] Meeting, Ministry for National Reconciliation and Unity, Suva, 17 February 2005.
[50] Email, Mereia Carling [[email protected]], UNICEF, Suva, 16 February 2005.
[51] Saraga Case Study.
[52] Phone conversation, Department of Justice and Legal Affairs, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 16 February 2005.
[53] Phone conversation, UNDP Office, Suva, 16 February 2005.
[54] Email, Mereia Carling [[email protected]], UNICEF, Suva, 16 February 2005.
[55] Phone conversation, Oja Bu’ono, Crow Law Department, Tonga, 17 February 2005.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/journals/JSPL/2005/17.html