ADR an effective means of dispute resolution

---

by: Israruddin Israr

---

Pakistan’s judicial system, based on British legal principles, grapples with issues of independence, inefficiency, and eroding public trust. These problems cause systemic dysfunction, backlogs, and rising litigation expenses. Consequently, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has emerged as a vital and effective alternative.

Across developed and developing legal systems ADR is now acknowledged as a complementary to the traditional litigation and preferable means of resolving disputes. It encompasses mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, which enable rival parties to resolve conflicts outside the traditional court system.

By emphasising cooperation, flexibility, confidentiality, party autonomy, and voluntary participation, ADR offers solutions that are better aligned with contemporary legal, commercial, social, and human rights–based justice needs.

While the adversarial judicial system remains essential for determining rights and establishing legal precedents, it often intensifies conflict, marginalises weaker parties, and consumes excessive time and resources. In contrast, ADR focuses on the underlying interests and needs of the disputing parties rather than rigid legal positions alone.

This participatory approach empowers individuals to actively shape outcomes, leading to solutions that are more sustainable, inclusive, and socially acceptable. Negotiation, the most basic and widely practiced form of ADR, serves as the foundation of dispute resolution. Rooted in direct communication, it relies on skills such as dialogue, persuasion, patience, and emotional intelligence. In societies like Pakistan and India, negotiation has long been embedded in social and cultural practices, making it an accessible and familiar method of resolving disputes.

Mediation and conciliation further strengthen ADR by introducing neutral third parties who facilitate dialogue and understanding. It assists parties in exploring options and reaching voluntary agreements, while conciliation allows the neutral facilitator to suggest possible solutions.

From a human rights perspective, these processes are particularly valuable because they prioritise consent, dignity, equality of participation, and the preservation of relationships. They have proven effective in family disputes, industrial labour relations, community conflicts, and commercial matters, where trust, fairness, and continued relationships are crucial.

Historically, dispute resolution in South Asia relied heavily on informal and community-based mechanisms such as jirgas and panchayats. While these traditional forums played a crucial role in maintaining social order, many of them evolved into informal parallel judicial systems that often operate outside constitutional and legal safeguards.

Such forums, however, have been widely criticised for violating fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of women, children, religious minorities, and other marginalised groups. In many cases, jirgas and panchayats have imposed discriminatory and violent punishments, denied due process, and reinforced patriarchal norms, making them controversial and incompatible with modern human rights standards.

These practices highlight the urgent need to distinguish between rights-based ADR and informal parallel justice systems that undermine constitutional protections. Contemporary ADR frameworks in Pakistan and India represent an effort to institutionalise dispute resolution in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights norms.

India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, modernised arbitration and conciliation while ensuring procedural fairness. In Pakistan, ADR has gained increasing recognition through judicial endorsement and legislative reforms. Laws such as the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, the Mediation Act, 2012, and provincial statutes including the Punjab ADR Act, 2019, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ADR Act, 2020, reflect a growing commitment to structured, lawful, and rights-respecting dispute resolution mechanisms.

Gilgit-Baltistan has also adopted a formal framework through the Gilgit-Baltistan Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2021, which promotes ADR for civil matters and compoundable offences. Legal Aid Society facilitated the Gilgit-Baltistan Government to introduce ADR mechanisms in the region. The Act provides for ADR centres and regulated procedures, offering an alternative to both overburdened courts and unregulated informal justice systems.

Collectively, these legal frameworks aim to enhance access to justice, reduce case backlogs, and promote community-based dispute resolution while remaining consistent with constitutional guarantees and human rights obligations.

Arbitration occupies a distinct place within ADR due to its formal, binding, and enforceable nature. Based on party agreement, arbitration is particularly suited to commercial disputes where confidentiality, expertise, neutrality, and finality are essential.

Although Pakistan and India both have arbitration frameworks in place, challenges persist, especially regarding enforcement and excessive judicial intervention. Nevertheless, arbitration remains a preferred mechanism for resolving complex commercial and contractual disputes.

In an increasingly globalised economy, international commercial arbitration has become indispensable for facilitating cross-border trade and investment. Its neutrality and predictability are especially attractive to foreign investors.

Pakistan’s evolving legislative and judicial approach toward international arbitration reflects an awareness of its importance for economic growth. Aligning domestic laws with international standards is essential for building investor confidence and integrating Pakistan into the global economic system.

ADR also plays a vital role at the international level, where negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are recognised as peaceful means of dispute settlement under international law. Institutions such as the World Trade Organisation use ADR techniques to complement formal dispute resolution processes.

The growing use of Online Dispute Resolution further demonstrates how ADR is adapting to technological advancements and changing global realities, expanding access to justice beyond physical and geographical barriers.

For Pakistan, ADR holds particular significance in the context of large-scale economic initiatives such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Efficient, neutral, transparent, and rights-based dispute resolution mechanisms are critical for managing commercial disagreements, safeguarding investments, and ensuring project sustainability. Strengthening ADR institutions, enhancing legal awareness, regulating informal justice practices, and building professional capacity can directly contribute to economic stability, social harmony, and the protection of human rights.

Ultimately, ADR represents a shift from confrontation to cooperation and from prolonged litigation to timely justice. Its true effectiveness, however, depends not only on sound legislation but also on rights-based implementation, institutional oversight, gender sensitivity, and public trust.

By promoting a modern, inclusive, and human rights-centred ADR system and by rejecting unregulated parallel justice mechanisms that perpetuate discrimination, Pakistan can move closer to a justice system that is accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs and dignity of all segments of society.