Conflict Resolution Mechanism

Examining the Implication Practices of Dispute
Resolution Council in Local Dispute Settlement: A
Case Study of District Haripur
PRESENTED BY
ADIL RASHEED
MS CP&D
FA14-R16-012
SUPERVISED BY
DR. ARIF ALAM 1

Introduction
• Holy Quran Surah Al Hujurat; Verse (09) and if two factions among the
believers fall to fighting then make settlement between the two.
• The formal judicial system in Pakistan is based on colonial practices which
with respect to nature is more bureaucratic and offering justice more costly
and time consuming (Qurashi, 1986).
• On the other hand the Jirga system in KPK and Baluchistan and Panchayat
in Panjab and Sindh are well recognized and well accepted informal
mechanism for the dispensation of disputes (Khan, 2004).
• “When there is no justice, what then would be the role of state, but a band
of Robbers Disbanded” (Souryal, 2010).
2

Literature Review
•Informal courts that are more accessible to poor and deprived groups so
proper attention must be given to them rather to ignore their existence
(Chirayath et al, 2005).
•Common reason found behind the mistrust of general public over formal
judicial system are mistrust, fear, language, complex system of legal judicial
system, financial issue, and time consuming mechanism (DFID, 2004).
•If we investigate an approach based on human right about the access to
justice so we definitely will find that marginalized and poor members of a
society lack trust on formal justice system and they prefer informal justice
system (UNDP, 2005).
•Khyber Pakhtukwa police has launched a mechanism of an alternate dispute
resolution named Dispute Resolution Council in 2014 with the intention to
resolve petty nature disputes i-e mostly of civil nature via quick and free
procedure (Saida 2014).
•(Sadia 2014) states that Dispute Resolution Council will change the police
station culture and ensure smooth settlement of disputes. Our justice system is
outdated and when certain civil disputes are not settled they lead to crimes
such as murder.
3

Structure of DRC
DPO
(District Police Officer)
Figure 1.1. Structure of Dispute Resolution Council (self designed)
Proceedings
Party A Party B
Decision Making
Hearings Fact Finding
findingNegotiations
Dispute Resolved Dispute Unresolved
Copy of Decision forwarded to
DPO / DC
FIR Launched and case forwarded
to legal court
Dispute Resolution Council
(DRC)
DC
(Deputy Commissioner)
Panel1
(3 members)
Panel 7
(3 members)
Panel 6
(3 members)
Panel 5
(3 members)
Panel 4
(3 members)
Panel 3
(3 members)
Panel 2
(3 members)
Panel
4

Problem Statement
• The parallel justice system like Jirga and Panchayat etc claimed to be
providing justice at the gross root level. Generally these systems stresses on
impartial judgments while making any decision of a dispute but mostly the
decision are challengeable and not accepted to international human rights
and to the state own judicial system as well.
• This anticipated pilot study is focusing on assessing the Dispute Resolution
Council credibility and function in order to find out its potential to be
integrated in legal governance, judicial, and conflict resolution system.
6

Objective of the study
Broader Objective
To understand the newly establish justice
system i-e DRC in KPK
Specific objectives
To study the nature and implication of
dispute resolution mechanism
introduced by government of KPK
through the system of DRC
To analyze the access of general public
to the office of DRC
To examine satisfaction level of the
beneficiaries whose cases have been
dispensed by DRC
8

Significance of the Study
• When judicial systems are not working properly people may start handling
the affairs themselves which can again lead toward anarchy and unrest.
• This study will try to highlight the difference between informal judicial
systems, legal judicial system and newly established informal-formal
judicial system that is currently working under KPK police since April,
2014.
• A guideline for the policy makers and competent authorities to adopt this
newly establish system at state level so it may contribute its role in
deliverance of justice.
9

Study Area
Study universe: District Haripur
11

Profile of the Study Area
Haripur
•The total area of Haripur is 1725 km2 and its population was 692228
according to the census of 1998.
•Hindko is the predominant language representing 68% of the
population, followed by Pushto 28.9%, Punjabi 1.8%, and Urdu 0.5%.
•literacy rate is 53.7% in Haripur District, the male literacy rate is
70.5%, and female literacy rate is dismally low at 37.4%.
•urban literacy rate is 69.7% while rural literacy rate is 51.4% (Sher
Ali 2014).
12

Sampling Strategy
Distribution of Respondents Unit
Gender Male 166, Female 34
Age 20 to 80 Years
Occupation Government Servant, Private, Self
employed, Un employed, Retired
Qualification Primary, middle, Matriculation,
intermediate, graduation, Post
Graduate
Income Group (Rs./per month) up to 15000, 30,000,
45000, 60,000 or above
Marital Status Single, Married, Widow
14

Data Collection
Primary Data
Primary Data Secondary Data
1. Questionnaire / face
to face interviews from
beneficiaries, Police
department and judges
2. Focused group
discussions: Judges,
Lawyers, Social Worker
3. Case Studies
Police Department, UN
reports, DRC office and
articles, journals etc.
15

Table: 01 Major findings of Demographic data
17

Table: 01 Major findings of Demographic data Contd
18

Table: 02 Nature of Disputes & Proceedings Duration
19

Table: 03 Nature of Dispute Resolution Council
20

Table: 04 Implication Practices of DRC
21

Table: 05 Reasons Behind Access
22

Table:06 Key Reasons Behind Access
Statement Strongly Agree Agree Average Strongly disagree Disagree
Poor’s Preference
75 51 32 26 16
(37.5) (25.5) (16) (13) (8)
Police influence
47 52 33 46 22
(23.5) (26) (16.5) (23) (11)
Legalities to get access
47 51 54 25 23
(23.5) (25.5) (27) (12.5) (11.5)
Attendance at DRC
69 49 37 28 17
(34.5) (24.5) (18.5) (14) (8.5)
Privilege to skip proceedings
67 64 31 25 13
(33.5) (32) (15.5) (12.5) (6.5)
Unbiased Decisions
80 56 31 16 17
(40) (28) (15.5) (8) (8.5)
Polities of Jury members
92 42 32 20 14
(46) (21) (16) (10) (7)
23

Table: 07 Satisfaction level of Beneficiaries
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Quick
Culture and tradition
Economic
Acceptable Decision
No corruption
Good environment of court
Involvement of Police Department
Acceptable to legal courts
Neutral No Yes
24

Table: 08 Key Reasons Behind Satisfaction
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Decision on merit
Cost Effective Justice
According to Culture
No political affiliation
Jury member's Knowledge
Future preference
In time decisions
Satisfied with decisions
Quick investigation
Decision on
merit
Cost Effective
Justice
According to
Culture
No political
affiliation
Jury member's
Knowledge
Future
preference
In time
decisions
Satisfied with
decisions
Quick
investigation
Disagree 0 0 2.5 8 3 4 6 5 11.5
Strongly Disagree 0 14.5 7.5 14.5 4.5 8.5 8.5 10 15.5
Average 9 11.5 10 13.5 12 11 21.5 11.5 16.5
Agree 20.5 29.5 30.5 26.5 33.5 34 39 26.5 26
Strongly Agree 70.5 44.5 49.5 37.5 47 42.5 25 47 30.5
Satisfaction Level
25

Focused Group Discussion
• Deliverance of quick and cost effective justice
appeal more general public toward itself.
• Expert judges and legal acceptance of
decisions make the DRC more effective.
• Pity nature disputes when resolve at grass root
level can have long lasting effects that can stop
occurrence of many disputes at larger level.
26

Conclusion
• DRC conduct quick and cost effective justice
according to culture of the society.
• Police and general public relation gets
strengthen and community make more trust on
police in their affairs.
• Decisions are made on merit which are
accepted worldwide.
27

Dispute Resolution Council Jirga Legal judicial System
Legal Illegal Legal
Proper structure Improper Proper Structure
Qualified Not qualified Qualified
Experienced In experienced Experienced
No political affiliation Can have political
affiliation
No Political
affiliation
Decisions can be
reviewed and challenged
Decisions can’t be
challenged and
reviewed
Decisions can be
reviewed and
challenged
Basic difference among legal and illegal judicial systems
28

Cost effective Cost effective Costly
Time effective Time effective Time consuming
Internationally accepted Not accepted internationally Accepted internationally
Only deal with pity nature
disputes
Deal with every sort of
disputes
Every concern court deal
with respective dispute
Fair selection of members No standards for selection Fair selection
Women representation No representation Women representation
Minorities representation Usually don’t consider
minorities
Minorities representations
Little knowledge to public
about DRC
More aware about jirgah
system
Aware about legal courts.
29

References
• Abdullah, A.-H. &. (2016, November 20). Importance of Justice in a society. Retrieved from College Term Papers
http//www.collegetermpapers.com/
• Aggarwal, D. (2002). Jurisprudence in India Through Ages. Delhi Kalpaz Publications.
• Akhtar, S., Alam, M., Shahid, M., & Ahmad, I. (2009). Study on Informal Justice system in Pakistan.
• Brookes, S. (2006). Community Policing in Context, in Crime Prevention and Community Safety, v8, n2, pp 104-117
• Chaddopadhyay, H., & Baghel, I. (2009). Indian Administration. New Delhi Global Publishing House.
• Chirayath. Leila Caroline, S. Michael, W. (July 2005). Customary law and policy Reforms Engaging with the Plurality of Justice System.
Sage Publications.
• COPS (2012), Community Policing Defined. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. http//ric-zai-
inc.com/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf
• Choudree, R. (1999). Traditions of Conflict Resolution in South Africa. African Journal on Conflict Resolution , 9 - 28.
• DFID (2004). Briefing Non-state justice and security system. DFID Report.
• Faqeer, H. (2007). The Judicial System of Pakistan. Law & Justice Commision of Pakistan.
• Fazal, H., Nisar ahmad, Abdur Rashid, and Shahid Farooq (2010). A Checklist of phanerogamic flora of Haripur Hazara, khyber
pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42(3) 1511-1522.
• Feagin, J R , Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg. G ( 1991). A Case for the Case Study. UNC press Books.
• Finance and Planning Department, Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, District Haripur (2016). Available at
http//www.haripur.financekpp.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=63
• Gayle Fisher-Stewart, Ph.D (2007) Community Policing Explained A Guide for Local Governments. U.S. Department of Justice Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services. http//www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/vets-to-cops/cp_explained.pdf
• Hussain, F. (2015). The Judicial System of Pakistan. Islamabad.
• Jenny, C. (2008). Evaluation team organizational assurance New Zealand police” an international literature review. New Zealand
Government.
• Kassem, Taha (2014). “Conciliation Mechanism: An Amicable Mechanism to Settle Business Disputes Advantages and Disadvantages”;
International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research Accepted 20 Sept 2014.
• Keith, A. (1961). Constitutional History of India, 1600-1935. Michigan Metheun & Company Limited.
• Khalil ur Rehman. (2010). Dispute Resolution in International Law. Faislabad.
• Khalil, A. (2013, April 16). Analysis of Informal Justice System. (Sarwar, S. Interviewer).
• Khan. (2004). Quest for Justice Judicial System in Pakistan, Centre for Democratic Governance, The Network of Consumer Protection.
30

• Khan, N. (2014, Janauary 16). Dispute Resolution Council Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Police.
• Khan, Z. (2012, May 7). Structure of Courts in Pakistan. Retrieved from
Pakistani Laws https//pakistanilaws.wordpress.com/tag/structure-of-
courts-in-pakistan/
• Kissinger, H.A., 1969. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. W.W. Norton,
New York, USA.
• Kjorven, O. (2012, November 13). Time to Integrate Traditional and Formal
Justice. pp. http//worldjusticeproject.org/blog/time-integrate-traditional-
and-formal-justice.
• Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups A practical guide for applied research
California SAGE publication
• Kumar, R. (2003). Essays on Legal Systems in India. Delhi Discovery
Publishing House.
• Landauer, J., & Rowlands, J. (2001). Justice. Retrieved from Importance of
philosphy http//www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Justice.html
• Law Commission of India. (1958). Law Commission of India's 14th Report.
New Delhi Government of India.
31

Conflict Resolution Mechanism

More Related Content

What's hot (8)

Similar to Conflict Resolution Mechanism (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Conflict Resolution Mechanism