Thoughts on the Microjustice Initiative

Based on what I wrote on Juripax that I first saw at the Liverpool ODR Forum earlier this year, I was contacted by May Britt to comment on a fascinating idea called the Microjustice Initiative.

An overview of the initiative is available here. There are some fascinating ideas in it, though I understand that it is still at a very embryonic stage with the full complexity of what they have embarked upon only slowly dawning upon its champions.

One reason I find this initiative interesting is because it can possibly use mobile phones in its dispute resolution / justice mechanisms to a far greater degree than many ODR systems currently operational. Excerpts from an email exchange I had with some of the Microjustice Initiative’s key thought-leaders follows (and was based on the initial concept note they sent to me):

To May Britt | 3rd September 2007

The paper, which I read through briefly, sounds very interesting and timely. I would submit, and I am sure you would agree, that the technical architecture required for the systems envisaged in the paper would be easier to design than the networks of community participation required for it to be (and to be seen as) effective and just. This is particular a problem in societies where inter-communal trust is abysmal, such as regions of protected ethnic conflict. Micro-justice in these regions are invariably tied to the larger social and political inequity – and addressing them on the ground needs to be done in parallel with larger systemic legal (constitutional) and political changes at the national level. As a study on ADR done by some of my colleagues at the Centre for Policy Alternatives found out, there’s a rich tradition of ADR in conflict zones, but the practice and promotion of these mechanisms is deeply problematic in violent conflict.

There’s also the question of gender – which I didn’t see directly addressed in the paper. It is often the case that even successful ADR mechanisms are in the control of and culturally primarily address the needs of men. The access to and participation of women in micro-justice initiatives I think is of paramount importance, but also tied to the particular cultural dynamics of a region / country / locale.

You may be interested in the two attached papers I wrote a few years ago on the use of mobiles and PCs in ODR at a very local level and also in the work of the Claro Parlade in the Philippines.

Email from Prof. Mr. J.M. Barendrecht, Universiteit van Tilburg | 5th September 2007

You are absolutely right, the IT structure is doable, the networks of community participation are much more critical. Our guess is that providing simple and understandable information about what fair outcomes are for standard disputes would contribute to making existing informal processes more just. Moreover we assume that a ‘business model’ can be developed in which local people upload local knowledge about fairness to a Microjustice website. But we need people who have this knowledge and have an interest in doing this. Much research and development will be necessary, and that is why try to involve not only NGO’s, but also IT companies.

I’ll be keeping my eye on this.

G-ODR for Gpay?

News of Google’s recent application for a patent application covering mobile payments made via SMS has the mobile world in a tizzy for the implications on mobile device / phone based commerce. As this Ars Technica article mentions, the patent “describes a system where a text message (specifically an SMS message) would be sent containing a payment amount. That payment amount would then be validated, debited from the user’s account, and communicated from server to server. Confirmation that payment had been received would also simultaneously be sent to the relevant part”.

Coupled with news of a gPhone, that’s bound to be, like Apple’s iPhone, a multi-network devices capable of seamlessly switching between Wi-Fi, EDGE, GPRS and possibly WiMax networks, Google is setting itself as a mobile commerce hub that could, if the service picks up, possibly exceed revenues generated by its sophisticated online advertising mechanisms.

Rumours aside, what’s interesting here is the potential for mobile ODR (G-ODR?!) that will invariably need to be developed to address disputes in and over transactions conducted through the Google patent. Although for a different purpose altogether (mobiles for conflict transformation and peacebuilding), the use of mobile phones and devices in ODR is something I pointed to as inevitable in 2004, to a then highly skeptical audience of ODR practitioners and service providers.

In an article co-authored by me titled An Asian Perspective on Online Mediation, I further fleshed out some of the ideas behind the development of mobiles in the service of ODR.

It’s interesting to see how some of them have come around, though there is still some resistance.

A really prescient article co-authored by one of the more enlightened minds in the ODR today, Ernest M. Thiessen from Smartsettle.com, suggests as early as 2003 that Mobile ODR would be a development service providers of ODR as well as practitioners needed to prepare themselves for.

It is well worth reading today.

Read more on mobile phones and the future of online dispute resolution:
The PC is Dead ! Long live Mobiles !
Mediation from the palm of your hand: Forgining the next generation ODR systems
ODR sans PC said the mobile to the radio
Transforming landscapes: Forging new ODR systems with a human face
My research, blog posts and articles on ODR