You are on page 1of 7

POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OUTCOME ARE HAMPERED

BY THE BELIEF AND PRACTICE OF COSMIC JUSTICE ESPECIALLY IN


AFRICA, DISCUSS.
Introduction
Human being need for justice is profound and exhibited in every aspect of life; whether is
justice in relation to a criminal offense, civil case, or petty dispute, there is the need to ensure
law and order by ensuring that justice is provided in our societies. To a large extent, what
constitutes justice may be relative, although, scholars at law often associate it with
punishment according to the law and at an appropriate time. The fact that time matters in
serving of justice is a crucial factor for the worldwide appeal of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. ADR provides aggrieved parties an opportunity at justice
with little cost and quickly than normal litigation. However, belief in justice instilled by law
and order created for and by man has its limitations. For instance, the quest to prove a person
guilty beyond all reasonable doubt which is a core aspect of law and judgment may result
in a guilty party walking free due to lack of substantial evidence. This in the view of some
persons reduces the credibility associated with human-sought justice. Thus, some people
often prefer to look for what in their eyes is considered justice and referred to in legal terms
as cosmic justice.

What is Cosmic Justice?


Ellis (2009) defines cosmic justice as the belief that the universe is in some sense just, and
that in some way the consequences of actions for human beings (or the effects of human
nature generally) are rigged so as to ensure that they reflect the good or bad moral attributes
of our actions or our nature. By implication, proponents of cosmic justice believe in a
universal form of justice that is inherent in cosmos (the world) such that ones actions

results in consequences that reflect the nature of their action whether it is acceptable or not,
right or wrong.

Sowell (2000) in also attempting to relate the principle of cosmic justice to traditional justice
affirms that the quest for cosmic justice means the laws that all individuals are subject to
which is the underlying core of traditional justice is insufficient and to a large extent
inadequate in providing cosmic justice. He identifies societal differences, individual
differences, cosmic differences as reasons why believers of cosmic justice do not believe
the traditional justice system to be fair and equitable, because by their arguments, such
differences will not make two individuals equal before the law.

Ellis (2009) identified that belief in cosmic justice requires such justice to be meted out by
some metaphysical being, be it God, the gods, karma, or some material processes, and that
the execution of such justice could take the form of consequences of actions, motives or an
ideal state that may occur on earth or in another life. The belief in social justice is also seen
as some form of cosmic justice: the quest for gender equality, the quest for equitable
distribution of resources, amongst others. In concluding, Ellis (2009) asserts that cosmic
justice [may] help to give purpose to many peoples lives hence their belief in such.

ADR and Justice


Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are court-based mechanism that seeks to
enforce rule of law by meting out justice in a fair, equitable and efficient manner whilst
reducing cost and time spent in resolving specific disputes. Schetzer et al (2002) defines ADR
as a mechanism that enables parties resolve disputes by the aid of a third party. In fact,

Agarwal (2000) notes that ADR has become a more acceptable form of seeking for justice
than litigation due to the time, costs and complexities involved in court room proceedings.

ADR may take various forms in providing justice and whichever form it takes is dependent
on the parties to the dispute and their preference. The major forms of ADR are Arbitration
(often regarded as the oldest ADR framework) and Mediation. Other forms of ADR which
have not been commonly used include Negotiation, Conciliation, Mini-Trial, Expert
Assessment, Dispute Review Boards, and Case Evaluation.

Arbitration involves settling disputes out of court by both parties voluntary selecting an
arbitrator(s) to whom they will submit their case to. The Arbitrator(s) passes judgment and
make(s) decisions binding on both parties. A branch of this form of arbitration is customary
arbitration which is used in Ghana for disputes filed under civil law and relate to matters that
are solvable by customary arbitration.

Mediation also involves a third party who acts as a mediator between parties to a dispute and
ensures that the settlement process is smooth and an agreeable settlement is reached by the
parties involved. The mediator serves as some sort of witness to the agreement. However, for
cases where parties are not fully confident in mediation process, a combined MediationArbitration process can be used such that in the event the mediation fails, arbitration is
resorted to. The same person acting as the mediator can be used as the arbitrator if preferred.

Two other often used ADR mechanisms include Negotiation, which requires parties to a
dispute meeting to discuss amicably to settle a dispute without involving a third party; and

Conciliation, where parties to a dispute seek for a third party assistance to resolve their
differences.

With ADR the focus is on ensuring rule of law and serving justice at a cheaper cost and in a
time-efficient manner. However, ADR processes equally depend on the rule of law and
reckon that every party to the dispute is equal before the law. ADR resolutions have full court
support and are upheld by them.

The application and execution of ADR in various instances worldwide have resulted in
quicker dispensation of justice. Uwazie (2011) studied the effects of ADR on Justice in Africa
and found that over the period 2003 to 2008, in Ghana over 3000 cases had been removed
from court for ADR settlement. Remarkably, over 75% of all such cases had been fully
settled outside the courtroom. Similar successes have been chalked in other African countries
including Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa with a success rate of an average of about 70%
and above. These provide substantial evidence of the success at ADR in providing justice.
However, the fact that ADR outcomes are based on laws and the rule of law suggests that
their outcomes are only in line with the concept of traditional justice that can be provided by
law.

Threat of Cosmic Justice to ADR


In Africa and in most developing economies, peoples belief in the law of nature is enshrined
in their religious affiliation and cultural orientation. For instance, Christians believe there is a
God who will judge the actions and thoughts of every man on earth. Moslems equally believe
in some form of supernatural justice; in fact, traditionalists equally believe the gods will

surely avenge an unfair deed. These beliefs border on culture and religion which is crucial
in shaping the thoughts and actions of individuals in a society.

In believing in such form of cosmic justice, people tend to trust less and less in the ability of
the legal system to provide justice. However, Sowell (2000) reckons that the kind of justice
believers in cosmic justice require is just impossible. In traditional African societies, the
Chief is seen as the mouthpiece of the gods and that the traditions of the community have
been provided by the gods. Thus, when a matter of dispute arises, rather than refer to the legal
system, the chief judges the matter based on traditions. The people accept such judgment
because of their belief in their gods.

The threat which this belief poses to ADR is the fact that more and more people who believe
in cosmic justice will be unwilling to accept settlements reached via ADR. This according to
Sowell (2000) has devastating costs and social dangers since cosmic justice is unattainable
by the legal system.

For instance, belief in cosmic justice may lead people to accept a certain condition as a
natural existence and an act of God when it is an injustice that has to be resolved. A good
example is the treatment of people who according to pastors are witches; the inhumane
treatment is an injustice that must be resolved by law, however, the belief of the persons
involved make them associate the inhumane treatment with cosmic justice. If this is adhered
to, then the rule of law will be gravely undermined. This is because there will always be one
excuse or another to support the current occurrence. To this, Sowell (2000) posits that in a
sense, those caught up in the vision of cosmic justice are also among its victims. Having
committed themselves to a vision and demonized all who oppose it, how are they to turn

around and subject that vision to searching empirical scrutiny, much less repudiate it as
evidence of its counterproductive results mount up?

Furthermore, because rules cannot produce cosmic justice, settlements by ADR are not
considered just to those who believe in cosmic justice. Sowell (2000) asserts that this
condition therefore results in the quest for power in order to circumvent laws and ensure that
the ideal justice one believes in is rendered. This can have a far reaching economic and social
consequence that will endanger the very existence of society. Rightfully so, in such
dispensation, the Chiefs settle disputes without recourse to the law and their subjects neither
question the authority nor reject the judgement. The people are more ready to accept such
conclusions than ADR resolutions which bother on rule of law.

Moreover, Ellis (2009) refers to how such belief in cosmic justice can let believers shy away
from seeking legal resolution to disputes. He asserts that belief in cosmic justice prevents us
adequately understanding and engaging with specific conditions, because it interposes a
dogmatic prior belief about the way that conditions operate. By this statement, he implies
that believers in cosmic justice tend to accept the way things work without seeking to resort
to other measures that may lead to different outcomes. Thus, rather than resort to ADR which
will help resolve an issue quickly, they prefer to leave things the way they are since by belief
it was so instituted.

Finally, the fact that ADR depends on third parties, who are equally human beings, deviate
from the perception of a metaphysical being responsible for dispensing justice according to
believers of cosmic justice. By that, any settlement or agreement reached is not regarded as
justice since it is a mankind decision. In fact, the third party to whom such reference is made

in dispensing justice may also depend on his/her belief in cosmic justice to dispense
settlements in cases involving ADR which may also affect the outcome.

Thus, the belief and practice of cosmic justice hampers the process of ADR and its outcome
especially given that beliefs about cosmic justice are from cultural and religious beliefs that
one is exposed to. Rather than use the law to dispense justice, ADR may be used as a tool to
promote cosmic justice, which in itself has no underlying principles and are based on a set of
alienated beliefs.

References
Agarwal, V. K. (2000), Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods, Document series no. 14,
Paper written following a UNITAR Sub-Regional Workshop on Arbitration and Dispute
Resolution, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ellis, R. (2009) Cosmic Justice. Available online at http://www.moralobjectivity.net/concept
%20-%20cosmic%20justice.html
Schetzer, L., Mullins, J. and Buonamano, R. (2002), A Project to identify legal needs,
pathways and barriers for disadvantaged people in NSW, Law and Justice Foundation of New
South Wales.
Sowell, T. (2000) The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Accenture.
Uwazie, E. E. (2011), Alternative Dispute Resolution in Africa: Preventing Conflict and
Enhancing Stability, Africa Security Brief, No. 16, pp. 1 6.

You might also like