Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:16:48.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Juridification and Technicisation of Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Rosanna Langer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution as conflict resolution mechanisms are being embraced widely by legal regimes in criminal law, family law, labour law, administrative law, and civil law areas. In this way, frustration with inadequacies of the legal system and an incipient crisis in legitimacy due to delay, expense and impersonality are contained, and control over dispute resolution is reasserted by the legal system. But in the process, these community-based practices also undergo an institutionalising transformation or “rationalisation” which removes them from their social framework and makes them into technical forms of conflict dispute resolution. This article uses an Habermasian analysis to contend that policymakers, legislators, professional and quasi-professional practitioners are thus systemically colonizing potentially liberatory social practices and transforming them into a “technique” where practices are formalised and strategies are imposed on conflict to produce determinable outcomes.

Résumé

À l'heure actuelle, la médiation et les autres modes alternatifs de règlement des différends sont largement adoptés par les institutions juridiques comme mode de règlement des litiges, et ce tant en droit criminel, en droit de la famille, en droit du travail, en droit administratif qu'en droit civil. La frustration qu'engendrent les lacunes du système judiciaire et une crise naissante de légitimité due aux délais et aux frais qu'occasionnent les litiges et à la rigidité du système sont ainsi maîtrisées et l'institution juridique préserve de cette manière une mainmise sur le règlement des litiges. Or, du coup, on observe une forme d'institutionnalisation, ou «rationalisation», de ces modes de règlement de type communautaire qui les met en marge du cadre social et les transforme en des formalités de règlement des litiges. Le présent article s'appuie sur une analyse Habermasienne pour dénoncer la colonisation de modes sociaux de règlement des litiges par les décideurs, le législateur, les professionnels et quasi-professionnels, qui transforment ainsi ces modes de règlement en une «technique» en vue de les encadrer et proposent des stratégies permettant d'assurer une certaine prévisibilité quant à l'issue des différends.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1998 , pp. 169 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Numerous authors express various related concerns with the expansion, professionalisation, “formalisation,” and transformation of informalism in dispute resolution practices. In particular, see the influential two-volume anthology edited by Abel, including his own important piece: Abel, Richard, “The Contradictions of Informal Justice” in Abel, Richard, ed., The Politics of Informal Justice (New York: Academic, 1982) 267.Google Scholar A strong Canadian source is Morris, Catherine & Pirie, Andrew, eds., Qualifications for Dispute Resolution: Perspectives on the Debate (Victoria: University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution, 1994)Google Scholar including Pine's own piece: Andrew Pirie, accord, which suggests that the legal system is co-opting A.D.R. “qualities” to an instrumental rationality representing an expansion of social control: Andrew Pirie, “Manufacturing Mediation: The Professionalization of Informalism” in Morris & Pirie, eds., ibid. 165 A qualified proponent of juridical expansion through allocating disputes to different institutional channels, including courts and A.D.R. fora, is MacDonald, Roderick, Study Paper on Prospects for Civil Justice (Toronto: Ontario Law Reform Commission, 1995)Google Scholar with commentaries by a host of other authors. See also Alfini, Jameset.al., “What Happens When Mediation is Institutionalized?: To the Parties, Practitioners, and Host Institutions” (1994) 9 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 307Google Scholar; Silbey, Susan & Sarat, Austin, “Dispute Processing in Law and Legal Scholarship: From Institutional Critique to the Reconstruction of the Juridical Subject” (1988–1989) 66 Denver University Law Review 437Google Scholar; Abel, Richard, “Informalism: A Tactical Equivalent to Law?” (1985) 19 Clearinghouse Review 375.Google Scholar

2. I argue elsewhere that separating and divorcing women may be disadvantaged by power imbalances in the divorce mediation process. Langer, Rosanna, “Divorce Mediation: How the Process of Informal Resolution Reinforces Male Dominance” in Parameswaran, Uma, ed., Quilting a New Canon: Stitching Women's Words (Toronto: Sister Vision, 1996) 135.Google Scholar See also Singer, Jana, “The Privatization of Family Law” (1992) 5 Wisconsin Law Review 1443Google Scholar; Grillo, Trina, “The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women” (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pickett, Elizabeth, “Familial Ideology and Mediation: Law Casts More than a ‘Shadow’” (1991) 3 Journal of Human Justice 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey, Martha, “Unpacking the Rational Alternative: A Critical Review of Family Mediation Movement Claims” (1989) 8 Can. J. Fam. L. 61Google Scholar; Shaffer, Martha, “Divorce Mediation: A Feminist Perspective” (1988) 46 U. T. Fac. L. Rev. 162Google Scholar; Bottomley, Ann, “What is Happening to Family Law? A Feminist Critique of Conciliation” in Brophy, Julie & Smart, Carol, eds., Women in Law: Explorations in Law, Family and Sexuality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985) 175Google Scholar; Woods, Laurie, “Mediation: A Backlash to Women's Progress on Family Law Issues” (1985) 19 Clearinghouse Review 431.Google Scholar

3. Mnookin, Robert & Kornhauser, Lewis, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce” (1979) 88 Yale Law Journal 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Frankenberg, Günther, 1978, “Elemente einer Kritik und Theorie des Schuldrechts” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of München, 1978)Google Scholar [unpublished] as cited in Habermas, Jurgen, “Law as Medium and Law as Institution” in Teubner, Günther, ed., Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) 203 at 218.Google Scholar

5. Ibid.

6. Habermas, Jurgen, “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’” in Habermas, Jurgen, ed., Toward a Rational Society, trans. Shapiro, Jeremy (London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1971) 81.Google Scholar

7. Habermas, Jurgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, trans. McCarthy, Thomas (Boston: Beacon, 1984) at 342.Google Scholar

8. In a useful critique of the expansion of informalism as an extension of social control over the workplace and the community, Richard Hofrichter, in reference to Habermas' theory, uses the phrase, “administrative—technocratic rationality.” He argues that neighbourhood justice fora (mediation centres) and the dispute resolution processes that occur therein serve to depoliticise class conflict, emphasize accommodation, and fragment collective action: Richard Hofrichter, “Neighbourhood Justice and the Social Control Problems of American Capitalism: A Perspective” in Abel, ed., supra note 1, 207 at 232. See also, Langer, Jeff, Technological Change on the Railways: Some Railway Workers' Experiences (M.A. thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 1995) [unpublished] at 18.Google Scholar

9. Melkevik proposes that Habermas' theory of communicative rationality provides a useful theoretical and analytical model to conceptualize and examine legal processes. Moreover, he contends that Habermas' model provides an approach by which to critically evaluate the intersubjective validity of legal decision-making processes. Melkevik, Bjarne, “Le Modèle communicationnel en science juridique: Habermas et le droit” (1990) 31 C. de D. 901 at 911.Google Scholar See also Melkevik, Bjarne, “Transformation du droit: Le point de vue du modèle communicationnel” (1992) 33 C. de D. 115.Google Scholar

10. Christie, Nils, Crime Control as Industry (London: Routledge, 1994) 153.Google Scholar

11. Ibid.

12. See Felstiner, William, Abel, Richard & Sarat, Austin, “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming …” (1980–1981) 15 Law and Society Review 631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also MacDonald, supra note 1; Bailey, Martha, “A Feminist Critique of the Family Mediation Movement” (L.L.M. thesis, Queen's University, 1988) [unpublished]Google Scholar; Sander, Frank, “Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution: An Overview” (1985) 37 University of Florida Law Review 1Google Scholar; Sachs, Harriet, “The Dejudicialization of Family Law: Mediation and Assessments” in Sloss, Elizabeth, ed., Family Law in Canada: New Directions (Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1985) 85.Google Scholar

13. Certainly, there are distinctions to be made amongst differing types of A.D.R. Many have been institutionalised for some time, arising in response to specific pressures such as consumerism or maturing from historically established practices like labour and industrial arbitration. See Mclntosh, Wayne, “150 Years of Litigation and Dispute Settlement: A Court Tale” (1980–1981) 15 Law and Society Review 823CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merry, Sally, “Disputing Without Culture: Review Essay of Dispute Resolution” (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacCauley, Stewart, “Lawyers and Consumer Protection Laws” (1979) 14 Law and Society Review 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruhnka, John, Weiler, Steven & Martin, John, eds., Small Claims Courts: A National Examination (Williamsburg: National Centre for State Courts, 1978)Google Scholar; Sarat, Austin, “Alternatives in Dispute Processing: Litigation in a Small Claims Court” (1976) 10 Law and Society Review 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some practices, such as pretrial conferences and private judges are still emerging and their implications are yet unknown. This article does not propose to canvas the spectrum of institutionalised A.D.R. practices, but rather to examine and evaluate a few current and evolving examples.

14. Bush, Robert Baruch & Folger, Joseph, The Promise of Mediation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994) 70.Google Scholar

15. Ibid.

16. Habermas, supra note 7 at 296–97.

17. Friesen, Ray, Mediation: An Alternative Within the Criminal Justice System (Winnipeg: Mennonite Central Committee, 1985) at 16Google Scholar [hereinafter Mediation].

18. Sander, Frank, “Towards a Functional Analysis of Family Process” in Eeklaar, John & Katz, Sanford, eds., The Resolution of Family Conflict (Toronto: Butterworths, 1984) xiii.Google Scholar

19. Folberg, Jay, “A Mediation Overview: History and Dimensions of Practice” (1983) 1 Mediation Quarterly 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Bush & Folger, supra note 14.

21. Mediation, supra note 17. The phrase “healing” is enjoying wide currency today, particularly in justice and academic circles. What it refers to here is a sense (biblical in origin), that crime is a rupture of the social fabric which requires mending. In this sense, it is the health of the community itself which requires “healing” through reparation or reestablishing “right relationships.” See Howard Zehr, as quoted in Umbreit, Mark, Victim Offender Mediation: Conflict Resolution and Restitution (Valparaiso, Ind: PACT Institute of Justice, 1985) at 2.Google Scholar See also Zehr's, influential book, Changing Lenses (Waterloo, Ont.: Herald, 1990).Google Scholar A similar application of the phrase is also evident in aboriginal jurisprudence. See Huber, Marg, “Mediation Around the Medicine Wheel” (1993) 10 Mediation Quarterly 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Patricia Monture-Okanee, “Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Bridge to Aboriginal Experience?” in Morris & Pirie, eds., supra note 1 at 131.

22. Christie, supra note 10 at 135–38.

23. Ibid. at 138.

24. Ibid. at 140.

25. Ibid. at 141.

26. Mediation, supra note 17 at 12.

27. Ibid. at 13.

28. Harley, Kathryn, “Program Guide: Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program and Community Mediation Service” (Kitchener: Office of Solicitor-General, 1981) at 8.Google Scholar

29. Youth Offenders Act (1984) R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1.

30. Harrington, Christine, Shadow Justice: The Ideology and ¡nstitutionalization of Alternatives to Court (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1985) at 26.Google Scholar

31. Although youth do have to accept “responsibility” for the act in question in order to be eligible for diversion, only a conviction would label them definitively as a “young offender.” This common but incautious use of law-language reflects another concern with informalism, that is, legal implications without the benefit of legal processes or safeguards.

32. It is questionable how successfully young persons' procedural rights are protected if the prosecution does proceed: a recent study found that youth may plead guilty out of ignorance or apathy; more than one-third of those appearing in Youth Court entered a plea and were sentenced without being represented by counsel. Fortugno, Stephania & Rogstad, Mark, A Socio-Legal Analysis of Youth Justice in Saskatoon: The Behaviour of the System Toward Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Youth (Saskatoon: John Howard Society of Saskatchewan, 1994) at 61.Google Scholar

33. See Braithwaite, John & Mugford, Stephen, “Conditions of Successful Reintegration Ceremonies: Dealing with Young Offenders” (1994) 34 British Journal of Criminology 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Edwards, Harry, “Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema” (1986) 99 Harvard Law Review 668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Bala, Nicholas, “Judicial Discretion and Family Law Reform in Canada” (1986) 5 Can. J. Fam. L. 28.Google Scholar

36. Ken Acton, Director of Mediation Services, Saskatchewan Justice, made this assertion in a lecture titled, “Dispute Resolution: Designing effective models of A.D.R. for today's society” (College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, 16 January, 1995) [unpublished].Google Scholar

37. Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2d Supp.) s. 9 (2). See also e.g. the Department of Justice Act S.S. 1983 c. D-18.2, which has been amended to allow the Mediation Services Branch of the Department of Justice to provide mediation services in family law matters as an alternative to private sector mediators. A mediator of family law issues may be appointed by application to the Court of Queen's Bench or Unified Family Court under section 13 of the Family Maintenance Act, S.S. 1990, c. F-6.1.

38. Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989–1990 c. C-7.2.

39. Supra note 37.

40. Children's Law Act, S.S. 1997, c. C.-8.2

41. The Saskatchewan Queen's Bench (Mediation) Amendment Act, 1994 S.S. 1994, c. 20, was passed in December 1994, with a provision mandating mediation orientation and screening in appropriate family law proceedings proclaimed 1 February 1995. Section 54 states: “[W]here a family law proceeding is commenced, the Registrar at designated judicial centres shall arrange for a mediation screening and orientation session for the parties.” A number of exemptions may apply: in the instance of an uncontested divorce, in an action for annulment, and in applications or proceedings pursuant to the Victims of Domestic Violence Act, S.S. 1994, c. V-6.02, the Child and Family Services Act, supra note 18, the Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, 1997 C.E. c. 9.21, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1996, c. 1–10–11, the Adoption Act, 1989–1990, c. A-5.1, The International Child Abduction Act, 1996, S.S. 1996, c. I.-10–11, or the Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1. Upon application by a party, the Court may order an exemption or postpone the requirement to attend mediation screening and orientation.

42. Duryea, Michelle LeBaron, “The Illusion of Neutrality” (1993) 5 Interaction 5.Google Scholar

43. Dingwall, Robert, “Empowerment or Enforcement? Some Questions about Power and Control in Mediation” in Dingwall, Robert & Eeklaar, John, eds., Divorce Mediation and the Legal Process (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988) 165.Google Scholar

44. LeBaron Duryea, supra note 42 at 5.

45. Rifkin, Janet, “Mediation from a Feminist Perspective: Promise and Problems” (1984) 2 Law and Inequality 26.Google Scholar

46. Ibid. at 27.

47. Picard, Cheryl, “Mediation: A New Profession?” (1992–1993) Interaction 1 [supplement] at 2.Google Scholar

48. Dukes, Frank, “Building a Sustainable Democracy: The Role of Public Dispute Resolution” (1993) 5 Interaction 5.Google Scholar

49. Ibid. at 7.

50. Eric Gilman & David Gustafson, “Of VORPs, VOMPs, CDRPs and KSAOs: A Case for Competency-Based Qualifications in Victim Offender Mediation” in Morris & Pirie, supra note 1, 89.

51. Gilman & Gustafson, ibid. at 99.

52. Fitzgerald, Jeffrey & Dickens, Richard, “Disputing in Legal and Nonlegal Contexts: Some Questions for Sociologists of Law” (1980–1981) 15 Law and Society Review 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Ibid. at 690.

54. Laura Nader, who has written extensively on dispute resolution in numerous cultures and contexts, argues that the A.D.R. movement reshapes disputes themselves to fit an ideology which devalues conflict and prioritizes an ideology of harmony, despite an absence of social consensus on rights and values. The result, she contends, is a kind of “pacification” and delegitimisation of justice-seeking individuals and activist community organisations. See Nader, Laura, “Processes of Constructing (No) Access to Justice For Ordinary People” (1990) 10 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 496 at 503.Google Scholar See also Nader, Laura, Harmony Ideology: Justice and Control in a Mountain Zapotee Village (Stanford, Conn.: Stanford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

55. See Pearson, Jessica, “The Equity of Mediated Divorce Agreements” (1991) 9 Mediation Quarterly 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Havel, Vaclav, “A Time for Transcendence” (1995) Utne Reader 53 at 112.Google Scholar