Scribd
Upload
3K views4 pages

Advantages of Indigenous Conflict Resolution

Legal pluralism refers to the existence of multiple legal systems, both state and non-state, that operate within the same geographical area. It is important to understand legal pluralism in any legal or policy intervention to ensure effectiveness and sustainability. Customary conflict resolution mechanisms, as a form of non-state legal system, have some strengths like being low cost, fast, culturally relevant, and responsive to the concerns of poor communities. However, they also have weaknesses like potential bias, lack of accountability, inconsistency with human rights, and limited applicability to more complex cases.

Uploaded by

mubarek oumer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views4 pages

Advantages of Indigenous Conflict Resolution

Legal pluralism refers to the existence of multiple legal systems, both state and non-state, that operate within the same geographical area. It is important to understand legal pluralism in any legal or policy intervention to ensure effectiveness and sustainability. Customary conflict resolution mechanisms, as a form of non-state legal system, have some strengths like being low cost, fast, culturally relevant, and responsive to the concerns of poor communities. However, they also have weaknesses like potential bias, lack of accountability, inconsistency with human rights, and limited applicability to more complex cases.

Uploaded by

mubarek oumer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Q1

Legal pluralism refers to the recognition of customary norms or institutions within state law or to
the independent co-existence of indigenous norms and institutions together with state law.

It’s the existence of multiple sources of law (both state and non-state) within the same
geographical area. Although the rule of law is often represented as law being made and
administered by the state, a growing body of literature suggests that the provision of a range of
different legal and quasi-legal security and justice mechanisms creates choices for individuals,
communities, and even the state itself

Legal pluralism also exists to an extent in societies where the legal systems of the indigenous
population have been given some recognition.

Understanding legal pluralism is important for any legal or policy intervention, including but by
no means limited to state building. Without understanding legal pluralism's dynamics in a given
context, interventions are likely to be ineffective. Even initiatives that enjoy short-term success
are unlikely to be sustainable, as they reflect good fortune rather than an informed approach.
Sound strategy requires understanding how state and nonstate actors interact systematically. 

Q2 strong side of Customary conflict resolution mechanism

Some of the strong side of Customary conflict resolution, in contrast with the court litigation or
formal way of conflict resolution are given as it has low cost, speed, accessibility, cultural
relevance, and responsiveness to the poor people’s concerns.

Customary conflict management and resolution mechanisms aim to resolve conflicts locally,
preceding or replacing external conflict resolution and thereby reducing reliance on external
structures. Customary mediation helps the community keep control over the outcome of the
conflict. Implementing this approach does not require sophisticated party structures or expensive
campaigns; it provides a low-cost, empowering means of resolving conflicts within a relatively
short time frame. In many societies, elders have indigenous jurisdiction in facilitation,
arbitration, and monitoring outcomes

Traditional conflict mediators typically possess moral status, seniority, neutrality and respect of
the community; they are acceptable to all parties and demonstrate leadership capacity.
Resolutions are generally accepted and respected by all concerned parties.

Customary conflict resolution processes will allow community members to pursue remedies and
resolve conflicts outside of the courtroom and still within their own cultural confines. Practiced
in Indigenous communities since time immemorial, they are culturally more appropriate than
litigation because they are based on the customs and traditions of the group concerned.

Strengths of traditional approaches to conflict transformation can be identified since the


indigenous conflict resolution approaches;

- fit situations of state fragility and failure;


- are not state-centric and hence credited with legitimacy;
- take the time factor into due account and are process-oriented;
- provide for comprehensive inclusion and participation;
- Focus on the psycho-social and spiritual dimension of conflict transformation.

Weak side of Customary conflict resolution mechanism

some Customary conflict resolution efforts may be weakened by age or gender bias for example,
in cases with no women elders, some women may believe that male elders are biased against
women and that this will be reflected in their decisions. Therefore the above idea can imply that
the Indigenous authorities are predominantly not progressive elements of social change

Customary conflict resolution mechanisms are among the others, it may led to the abuse of
power, may lack accountability, and not consistent with International human rights as it practices
inhuman and degraded punishments.

Customary conflict resolution mechanism has limitations such that it is not appropriate taking
cases as public sanction, with extreme power imbalance, may undermine other judicial reform
efforts, and have no any educational, disciplinary, or restriction effect on population. Therefore
the decisions that can best describe court proceedings are adversarial, thorough, rigid, strict,
evidentiary, rights-oriented, unbiased, impartial, and generally appealable unlike the indigenous
conflict resolution mechanisms.

On the other hand Customary conflict resolution is targeted at problems in relatively small
communities in the local context. It can work well within a given community with regard to the
members of that community. Conflicts within and between families, between neighbors, within
and between villages or clans lend themselves rather easily to traditional approaches.

There are several problems with using Indigenous Dispute Resolution for more advanced cases
such as patent challenges concerning Indigenous communities.

Firstly, Indigenous populations have different fundamental conceptions from mainstream


society, resulting in only a handful of people who actually understand the culture indigenous to
them. This condition can lead to misunderstanding, mistrust, abuses and marginalization.
Secondly, Governments may hesitate to organize or uphold Indigenous Dispute Resolution
infrastructures, whether in traditional conflict areas such as land disputes and employment
discrimination to newer conflict prone subjects such as patenting of traditional knowledge,
nonconsensual commercial use of indigenous symbols or art, and the unauthorized
recording/reproduction of ancient chants, songs, movements and dances

The five major five major weaknesses. Indigenous approaches;

- do not terminate violence in the long term;


- often contradict universal standards of human rights;
- have a limited sphere of applicability;
- are geared towards the preservation of the ‘good old’ order;
- are open to abuse

Q4 gender inequality

Unchallenged cultures of male dominance led to the subordination and even exclusion of many
women, and also many men who do not conform to ‘hegemonic’ forms of masculinity. 
Looking specifically at women: there is a growing and compelling body of evidence which
shows that women not only bear the brunt of poverty but, that women’s empowerment is a
central precondition for its elimination.
Poverty elimination can only be achieved by addressing the disproportionate burden of poverty,
lack of access to education and health services, and lack of productive opportunities borne by
women. Gender inequality represents a huge loss of human potential, with costs for men as well
as for women. Gender equality is therefore integral to democracy, development and a human
rights system to which all people are entitled.
Rigid norms related to gender and power differentials between groups of men, mean that many
men are vulnerable to violence (the leading cause of death for young men worldwide) and are
less likely to seek health services when needed as compared to women. Programmed
interventions at the local level have shown tremendous success in engaging men and boys in
promoting their own health and well-being and that of women and girls.
Violence, privilege, injustice and impunity are intimately linked. Violent behavior is generally
perceived to be an integral part of male behavior and as a normal feature of being a man.
Violence is, in fact, culturally ‘masculinized.’ Gender-based violence is related to systems and
feelings of power – the oppression of women and certain groups of men. Gender inequality
perpetuates a culture of violence. When women are viewed as something less, as persons
subjected to male authority, men feel less hesitation in using and degrading women for their own
satisfaction as their satisfaction is deemed to be of greater importance.
Unfortunately, culturally dominant norms of masculinity that encourage men to use violence
limit not only men’s but also women’s and girls’ choices, safety and behavior.
Those women who are marginalized, as a consequence of discrimination and disadvantage, are at
particular risk of experiencing mental ill-health and often face greater barriers to accessing
services.

You might also like