Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

ity of ADR decisions. If it is too easy to challengean ADR ruling in court, then parties do not have asufficient incentive to take ADR seriously (Shavell1995). On the other hand, the harder it is to contestADR decisions, the greater the concern thatimportant individual rights and entitlements arebeing decided outside of the judicial system bynon-state actors.While all of these problems are serious and legitimateconcerns, a number of countries have hadconsiderable success crafting ADR programmesthat reduce the burden on the judicial systemand increase access at a relatively low cost. InBangladesh, for example, local mediation councilsresolve 60 -70 percent of local disputes (US-AID 2002). In Argentina, the Ministry of Justiceand USAID supported the creation of legal servicecentres in Buenos Aires to provide mediationservices, and these centres appear to have beeneffective (USAID 2002). Again, while the designof appropriate ADR programmes is challengingand context-dependent, most available evidenceindicates that developing cost-effective ADR programmesis an important though imperfect meansof providing an alternative to using an overcrowdedcourt system.Bundling with Other ServicesLegal aid programmes are most effective whenthey are bundled with other social services ratherthan offered as stand-alone programmes. Forexample, the South African Legal Aid Board,which experimented with a variety of models forproviding civil legal aid, found that the most effectivemodel is a ‘justice centre’ model — a ‘onestop legal shop’ that provides comprehensivelegal services through a combination of lawyers,advocates, paralegals, and administrative staff(MacQuoid-Mason 2000). Similarly, many LatinAmerican countries have had success with ‘Casasde Justicia’ (Houses of Justice) that provide assistancewith both legal and non-legal aspectsof common problems, such as child support andcustody issues, property disputes, domestic violence,and administrative matters (USAID 2002).This model may be more effective than state subsidisationof private lawyers and advocates whoprovide legal services to the poor.Arelated point is that international donorshave had more success funding local NGOsthat provide a variety of services, including legalservices, than in funding NGOs that provideexclusively legal services. More encompassingorganisations tend to be more effective in reachingthe target population, and they also tend to bemore sustainable in the long term (ADB 2001a).Thus, adding legal services capacity to existingcommunity-based organisations is a more promisingstrategy than supporting or establishing neworganisations that focus exclusively on providinglegal aid. One possible ‘bundling’ strategy thatholds particular promise is the integration of legalaid services with microfinance institutions (MFIs).MFIs have regular access to poor communities anda group-based service delivery model well-suited tolegal aid services, especially when collective actionis necessary. Reformers have already begun to experimentwith incorporating health and educationservices within existing MFIs, and early indicationssuggest this integration has been effective (Dunford2002). Adding legal aid services seems like areasonable next stepMany of the generic and actual examples citedin this paper reflect how legal implementationcan build on or integrate with other developmentactivities and fields. In fact, legal empowermentoften is most effective when this takes place.The integration with community organising andgroup formation represents this phenomenon.Another example is the use of the media, which27