Whose Justice, Whose Alternative? - Locating Women's Voice and Agency in Alternative Dispute Resolution Responses to Intimate Partner Violence

"Both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that ...a significant proportion of women survivors of intimate partner violence choose community-based alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to help address the violence they are facing. Research finds that as many as 80 percent of disputes made public in the Global South are addressed through the informal justice system."

This report from Beyond Borders, Center for Domestic Violence Prevention (CEDOVIP), and the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) examines how well ADR mechanisms have addressed violence for women around the world by asking the following questions:

• "What do ADR responses to intimate partner violence look like, particularly in the Global South?
• To what extent do these approaches prioritize the voice and agency of women survivors of intimate partner violence?
• What examples exist of ADR approaches that better prioritize the voice and agency of women survivors of intimate partner violence?"

In examining ADR worldwide, the authors found the following terms used: Mediation, Customary Courts, Reconciliation, Community Committees, Village Courts, Paralegal Groups, Sentencing Circles, Women’s Courts, Gender-based Violence Watch Groups, and Family Courts. Some of these involve processes of mediation where the parties find an agreement, and some involve arbitration where a third party makes the final decision on a conclusion/solution. "The study uses the term 'voice and agency' as a barometer for the extent to which the rights and autonomy of women survivors of intimate partner violence are being respected in ADR mechanisms."

The methodology included a literature review and a key informant interviews with informants with particular expertise in the Caribbean, Central America, the Middle East, North America, the Pacific, South America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. (The Key informant interview guide and other methodological details are available by request through ICRW.) Results of data analysis showed the following by categories:

What are the existing ADR systems:

• ADR systems vary from region to region (some more than 400 years old).
• Often operating within a tribe, clan, village, or faith community, many systems "resolve a broad range of family and community disputes, including those involving land, property, inheritance, business issues, and any other variety of cases, without involving the formal justice system."
• A few, which specifically addressed intimate partner violence cases, were likely the result of civil society and non-governmental organisation (NGO) funding and effort and "much more likely to involve specific training for mediators on women’s rights and the particular dynamics of intimate partner violence."

Who leads the process/what training/skills do they offer:

• "ADR processes are often led by diverse agents, including: clergy, political leaders, tribal elders, elected local committees, women’s groups, non-governmental organizations, and mediators/arbitrators/judges directly linked to the formal justice system."
• The knowledge, attitudes, skills, and philosophies of process leaders were found to create crucial differences based upon their gender, authority, and interpretation of norms and values.
• In some instances, local women's groups have developed ADR approaches, which, according to informants, are "more likely to deliver appropriate solutions..." depending on the skills of including women’s voices, prioritising a survivor-led approach, and including community support.

Does the ADR approach expand or restrict the options available to survivors of intimate partner violence:

• A perceived advantage of ADR processes: "they expand the options available - to women survivors of intimate partner violence and arbitrators/mediators alike - in response to violence and other disputes."
• Government-developed ADR systems bring a mandatory process prior to formal court processes, a path that excludes other arbitration.

Because women are likely to pursue the ADR process, each step must prioritise women's agency, as noted here. Steps include: initial reporting and information gathering; summons and hearings; decision/punishment; and enforcement. Prioritisation of women means the opportunity for private and in-depth information-gathering to establish a woman's testimony, her testimony of experiences and preferences without interruption, her input into dealing with the perpetrator to end violence without her victimisation, and community member watchdogging for enforcement.

The report gives examples of models that prioritise women's voice and agency (beginning in page 19), such as Committees Against Violence Against Women (CAVAWs) of Vanuatu, Women’s Courts in Gujarat, India (Nari Adalat/Mahila Panch), and SASA! and Responsibility Meetings of Uganda. (See related summaries below for further information on several of these examples.) Recommendations for donors and governments include the following (also see page 23 for details on the Due Diligence Project guidelines and the United Nations Joint Global Programme on Essential Services for Women and Girls Subject to Violence):

• "...[E]stablish strong laws criminalizing  all forms of violence against women, and dedicate  adequate funding, human resources, and training to ensure high-quality implementation.
• Increase funding to grassroots feminist organizations working to prevent and respond to intimate partner violence: those that oversee rights-based ADR processes, those that support women survivors of intimate partner violence, and those that work to educate and mobilize communities against violence.
• Invest in research and evaluations to better understand the nature, scope, ethics, and effectiveness of ADR responses to intimate partner violence taking place; around the world."

Recommendations for activists and organisations include:

1. "Engage! Don’t ignore or attempt to abolish traditional ADR approaches; rather, engage them to better hold them accountable for protecting the rights and safety of all citizens, and prioritizing the voice and agency of women survivors of intimate partner violence.
2. Strengthen and document your own programs! If your organization leads ADR processes, or interacts closely with those who do, draw upon the lessons and insights of this study to fundamentally increase the extent to which such practices prioritize the voice and agency of women survivors of intimate partner violence at all steps of the process.
3. Shift community norms! Grassroots justice mechanisms will have a much better chance of upholding women’s rights and leading to violence-free families if the wider community is simultaneously shifting toward fundamental rejection of intimate partner violence.
4. Connect resources and services! Help ensure that ADR authorities/mechanisms are well connected with other relevant health, legal, and support services for survivors of intimate partner violence, and establish clearer linkages with formal justice systems.
5. Keep learning, teaching, and building skills! Work with community and ADR process leaders to enhance their understanding of intimate partner violence, their commitment to prioritizing women’s rights, and their creativity in crafting solutions.
6. Focus on the details! To the extent that any ADR processes involve paperwork, or are codified in any way, there may be small adjustments to such processes that can build women’s voice and agency considerations into the standard procedures."