Syndicate content

dispute resolution

Resolving disputes, avoiding litigation in India

Shanker Lal's picture
An overhaul of Dispute Boards looks to prevent delays in the creation of new infrastructure, such as the construction of roads and railways.
Photo: Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank

A significant percentage of government spending in India goes towards the creation of new infrastructure like the construction of roads, ports, railways and power plants. Construction contracts, however, often have a reputation for disputes and conflicts between contractors and governments. Such disputes ultimately delay implementation of the contracts and increase total costs, adversely impacting development outcomes of the projects.

Many countries have found that Dispute Boards offer an effective mechanism for resolving these issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. These boards, composed of one to three members, are set up upon commencement of a contract and help the involved parties avoid or overcome disagreements or disputes that arise during the contract’s implementation. The boards are less legalistic, less adversarial, less time consuming and less costly than options for resolving disputes within the legal system, including arbitration and litigation.

A 2004 study (PDF) shows that Dispute Boards have been successful in resolving even the most strenuous disputes with an almost 99% success rate. The savings in using these boards are enormous: another study indicates that in almost 10% of projects, between 8% and 10% of the total project cost was legal cost.

Grievance Redress Mechanisms – Do they work?

Shamiela Mir's picture

Among many tools that enable gathering of project beneficiaries’ concerns and solving them are Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRMs). Although the mechanisms themselves are not new, World Bank teams are increasingly encouraged to systematically include GRMs in their projects to increase beneficiaries’ participation, solve project-related disputes and ensure that projects achieve their intended results. As such, GRMs have been a topic of debate among World Bank staff.  GRMs are also called dispute resolution and conflict management/resolution mechanisms and they are considered to be one of several social accountability mechanisms. The topic is, therefore, not only timely at the World Bank but should also be of interest to development practitioners generally.

Hybrid Courts in East Asia & Pacific: Does the international community have a role to play?

Peter Chapman's picture

In my previous entry, I asked what role the World Bank and other donors might be able to play in exploring whether hybrid courts might help enhance access to justice. I believe there are three key areas where we in the international community might be able to support country discussions of whether and how to incorporate community justice systems through hybrid courts.

Hybrid Courts in East Asia & Pacific: A recipe for success?

Peter Chapman's picture
Daru Village Court in Papua New Guinea

What accounts for whether hybrid courts stick as relevant and useful institutions, as opposed to withering as a ‘neither-nor’ – neither regarded as a familiar community mechanism, nor as having the full backing of the state? In my previous blog entry, “History of Hybrid Courts in East Asia & Pacific: A ‘best fit’ approach to justice reform?”, I discussed the emergence of hybrid courts. In this post, I’ll raise three elements which seem to be essential characteristics of successful hybrid court systems: legitimacy, effectiveness, and flexibility.

History of Hybrid Courts in East Asia & Pacific: A ‘best fit’ approach to justice reform?

Peter Chapman's picture
Peter Chapman

It took 41 years for the fastest developing 20 countries in the 20th century to achieve basic transformations in the rule of law.  However, the World Development Report 2011 suggests that fragile countries cannot afford to wait that long.  Instead, in managing disputes, it is imperative for governments and the international community to support arrangements that fit each country context, take into account capacity constraints in government and the local level, and respond to the needs of users. Justice reform should be measured accordingly from a functional perspective—based on the needs of users—rather than abstract modeling of institutions on western approaches.