COI Conference – Panels

Access to justice: This panel discusses the institutional cooperation between legal assistance providers in Utrecht (NL) and local authorities (gemeente Utrecht) to resolve legal disputes appropriately. Is this a viable route to preventing and resolving disputes? What is the effect of the public/private nature of the cooperation and what is the dynamic created? To what extend do different roles in the rule of law stand in the way of successful cooperation?

International mediation – credentials and ethics: This panel will examine the institutional collaborations needed to establish the competency and other bases for effective and high-quality mediation to be more readily available and accessible, especially in the cross-border context.  Omer Shapira will take a deep dive into mediation ethics and practice standards, exploring how ethical guidelines and codes of conduct are essential for ensuring the effectiveness and fairness of mediation as an institution for preventing and resolving conflicts. His presentation will specifically focus on the role of non-governmental actors, such as community mediation centres in Israel and the International Mediation Institute based in The Hague, in developing and implementing codes of ethics that promote just and trustworthy conflict resolution in both national and international contexts.

Restorative and transitional justice: The three presentations during this panel will cover a broad and very interesting range of topics. The first presentation is titled 'Redefining Transitional Justice in Internal Armed Conflicts: The Case for an Intergenerational Lens' and will cover the topics of transitional justice, intergenerational justice, peace and truth and reconciliation. The second presentation covers topics like state-capture & corruption redress, Zondo Commission of Inquiry, peace-and-justice balance, Anti-Corruption Redress (AnCR) System and integrity & accountability. The final presentation is titled 'The role of public institutions in the implementation of restorative justice systems' and covers the topics of Restorative Justice, Victims ad Public Institutions.

Narratives at the intersection of criminal law and mental health: Within criminal law and within the field of mental health, cross-border behaviour is looked at from different perspectives. The nature of the behaviour and the person exhibiting that behaviour are viewed differently, either as offence/offender or symptom/patient. These different narratives can coexist but meet at the interface of forensic psychiatry. In this panel session a narrative perspective is given on the functioning of various actors working at the intersection of criminal justice and care. 

This panel will start broad by a presentation on the different perspectives held within the field of criminal justice, sentencing and mental health care in the Netherlands. Differences in narratives influence the effectiveness of conflict resolution and provide an explanation for why sometimes proposed resolutions do not work. Following, we will look at the conflict between offender and victim within forensic psychiatry. The next presenter will discuss the preliminary results of a systematic narrative review on victim-offender interaction in forensic psychiatry and how this affects treatment. In line with this, the next presentation will focus on narratives of victim-offender mediators and provides results of an empirical legal study using both interview and case file data.

Youth and family justice: In one of the presentations of this panel, the presenters will zoom in on conflict resolution in family and youth law by the Dutch Supreme court. They will present the results of a thorough empirical analysis of all family and youth law cases handled by the Supreme Court in 2022. Another presentation concerns the specialised domestic violence courts that have emerged in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in an attempt to improve the criminal justice response to domestic violence. These alternative courts aim to adequately response to domestic violence by taking a holistic approach, monitor the defendant and intensively collaborate with non-legal organizations. The presenter examines whether these courts pay attention to the children of the family in these cases, and specifically underage witnesses of domestic violence, as well.

Civil procedure (fair trial and evidence): One of the presentations within this panel aims to provide an overview of the concept of vulnerability in civil procedure, its different forms and the difficulties when having to identify ‘the vulnerable litigant.’ Such a qualitative analysis, which combines a legal and social-psychological perspective, allows for a better understanding of vulnerability as a concept. Another presentation looks into determinants of commercial law cases. That is, what factors are responsible for the decline of commercial law cases in the Netherlands and if this decline is cyclical (due to the business cycle) or structural. 

Furthermore, this panel examines the role of evidence law in preventing conflict and promoting early conflict resolution. It shows how continental European legal systems have historically used evidence law to prevent disputes (e.g. by encouraging written contracts in Belgium and France). It also suggests that further research can be done (e.g. by looking at American rules of evidence in relation to apologies and compensation), although some challenges are difficult to overcome and affect their effectiveness.

Effective European institutions: Within agencies that take highly technical individual decisions, boards of appeal have been established as a first layer of internal control prior to judicial review. They are independent offices within the agencies offering a swifter, more informal and cheaper instrument of rights protection that have the resources to conduct a full, substantive review of the agencies’ decisions as opposed to the EU courts. However, it is still unclear whether they actually meet their expectations to be an independent, effective and expert mechanism of conflict resolution. This and more will be discussed during this panel.

International arbitration: As the social impact of international commercial arbitration increases continuously, a question that gains particular prominence is how do arbitrators decide cases. More pointedly, what influences arbitral decision-making? During this panel, one of the presenters will delve into the empirical methods that can be useful for investigating and identifying these influences.

Another presenter will examine the effects of economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom on the field of international arbitration. Based on each regime’s structure, the study to be presented evaluates the impact of each sanction regime on the provision of legal services by legal professionals involved in arbitration international arbitration proceedings and transfer of funds between a designated person and other players engaged in arbitration.

Gender rights and violence: This panel amongst others summarises the key principles of the victim-centred approach (VCA) as documented in international instruments and scholarship, and adopts VCA as a yardstick to assess hybrid tribunals as an institutional response to sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN peacekeeping forces. It furthermore discusses the types, organisers and participants of formal and informal institutions in the countries that are heavily affected by conflicts, and discusses their role in helping victims/survivors of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). Following that, it attempts to explore how public actors can be used to provide primary assistance to victims/survivors of CRSV, and how informal institutions can fill in the gaps where the formal element is not involved.

Legitimacy, Institutions for Conflict Resolution, and their Cross-Fertilization: The main goal of this panel is to gain a better understanding of legitimacy within the context of institutions for conflict resolution. To that end, we examine (1) whether and, if so, how studying institutions for conflict resolution through the lens of legitimacy can enrich our understanding of these institutions, and (2) whether and, if so, how studying legitimacy in the specific context of institutions for conflict resolution can enrich our understanding of the concept of legitimacy. During the panel, we aim to further explore this cross-fertilization between the concepts of legitimacy and institutions for conflict resolution, as well as fruitful avenues for future research. The panel is intended as a follow-up to a special issue on this topic that was published in May 2023 by Utrecht Law Review. During the panel, invited speakers will share their insights on legitimacy and institutions for conflict resolution, to which discussants will respond based on their papers published in the special issue.

Mediation: This panel amongst others aims to investigate various instruments recently employed in Italian Academia to disseminate a culture of mediation. This will involve the analysis of innovative teaching and research practices, as well as dispute resolution mechanisms currently offered by institutional figures within Italian universities. Furthermore, Barbara Warwas will present her paper on ‘Community trust building and peer mediation practices for people-centred justice: the case of Trust Mediators’ Toolkit’. She will address topics like educational research, people-centred justice, student-led citizen science, peer-mediation and sociological approaches to the rule of law.  

Role of the judge in politically sensitive cases: Judges are social actors. As such, they relate with actors within the boundaries of the state and outside of the state borders. These relationships change institutions and policies. One of the presentations in this panel pinpoints judges’ individual practices that resulted in changes in human rights policy making, with spill over effects on conflict resolution and accountability. Another presentation addresses the self-standing procedural obligation for states to effectively investigate the circumstances of alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3, established by The European Court of Human Rights. Separately addressing the State’s substantive and procedural obligations under these Articles enables the Court to find a partial, procedural violation thereof, even in cases where a substantive violation cannot be found. In recent years this approach has also been applied in certain Article 14 cases on racist police violence. This contribution explores the prudence of this approach and argues that by divorcing the substantive from the procedural in the context of Article 14, the Court risks creating a false dichotomy between two integrated aspects of the same crime.

Repair in collective harm cases: A comparative law study on the settlement of mass harm claims in Europe will be published this month. This publication is the result of intensive cooperation between researchers in 13 different countries. On the basis of case studies, the extent to which compensation for mass harm consisting of personal injury, property damage, dairy property damage or damage to the environment and the living environment through liability law and civil proceedings has been investigated. It is impossible to discuss all the results, but the presentation will highlight some of the main outcomes.

Legitimacy, Institutions for Conflict Resolution, and their Cross-Fertilization: The main goal of this panel is to gain a better understanding of legitimacy within the context of institutions for conflict resolution. To that end, we examine (1) whether and, if so, how studying institutions for conflict resolution through the lens of legitimacy can enrich our understanding of these institutions, and (2) whether and, if so, how studying legitimacy in the specific context of institutions for conflict resolution can enrich our understanding of the concept of legitimacy. During the panel, we aim to further explore this cross-fertilization between the concepts of legitimacy and institutions for conflict resolution, as well as fruitful avenues for future research. The panel is intended as a follow-up to a special issue on this topic that was published in May 2023 by Utrecht Law Review. During the panel, invited speakers will share their insights on legitimacy and institutions for conflict resolution, to which discussants will respond based on their papers published in the special issue.

Judging sustainability cases: This panel discusses the empirical investigation about the relation between politically sensitive cases and public trust in judges. Study 1 shows that when people perceive a case to be politically sensitive, they also believe that judges are more activistic and less trustworthy. Study 2 aims to replicate these correlational findings in a bigger sample. The panel furthermore explores the preliminary findings of a content analysis of case law in 15 jurisdictions, focusing on how courts approach the scientific aspects of climate lawsuits. The study reveals a noteworthy trend: despite the nitid scientific dimension of these disputes, courts rarely seek the assistance of experts to comprehend relevant scientific questions. The panel also identifies sustainable development as a solution to the environment-development debate; however, its inconsistent implementation inside courts can lead to arbitrariness and ultimately increase environmental degradation. To resolve this situation, Indian courts have emphasized the relevance of the Environmental Rule of Law (EROL) in strengthening environmental governance and resolving ecological disputes in a just, equitable, fair, and inclusive manner.

Institutions for conflict resolution in transformation: What are the pros and cons of the new (divorce) procedure: joint parental access to court resolution (pilot gezamenlijk toegang ouders) developed by the district courts of the Hague and Oost-Brabant running in the period from 1 April 2021 to 1 October 2023? Should the procedure be introduced generally? This will be discussed during this panel. This panel will furthermore discuss the fact that over the past decade, judges in the Netherlands have been voicing complaints regarding the high workload they face, as this would threaten the quality of the administration of justice. The panel aims to provide an overview of judges’ strategies to deal with a high workload and offer an understanding of the effects on the quality of their work. Another paper in this panel empirically examines what kind of ethical dilemmas judges encounter in problem-solving judging and how conflicting values are weighed and incorporated into their actual day-to-day decision-making process. Responsive judging implies a more hybrid interpretation of judges' professional roles, where judges adopt conciliating and problem-solving approaches in addition to the traditional adjudicating role.

Cultural property and redress: One of the presentations during this panel postulates transformative methodologies to conflict resolution with the aim of proposing a different perspective of resolving conflict in these novel circumstances that we find ourselves in and addressing societal needs. The conventional methodologies of conflict resolution tend to cause impasses and deadlocks resulting in the continuance of conflict that causes unnecessary harm to society, people and all parties involved. It becomes essential to construct sustainable methodologies that create a lasting impact to resolving challenges and barriers to negotiating the ideal solution for everyone.

Indigenous conflict resolution systems: This June, the Government of Canada will complete the Action Plan under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP Act). Prepared by the federal authorities in consultation and cooperation with representatives of Indigenous peoples, this plan will identify specific measures to enable Indigenous peoples to enjoy the minimum standards for survival, dignity and well-being of their respective peoples. Starting from the Action Plan content analysis, one of the presentations in this panel aims to emphasise that the UNDRIP Act represents only the latest step within the multi-level and multi-institutional path of Reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples that Canadian authorities have pursued in recent years to overcome the colonial past of discrimination and abuse against Indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, Kathleen Mahony will argue that indigenous methods of conflict resolution should be more fully received into the Canadian legal framework, because they lead to better outcomes across the board. She will specifically address the deficiencies of the common law of tort, criminal law and international human rights laws’ ability to resolve conflict compared to that of indigenous law and provide an example of the most successful indigenous settlement in Canadian history.

“This post violated the rules”: “This post violated the rules” discusses the interplay between public and private institutions in preventing and resolving online norm violations. This panel discusses how public and private institutions may contribute to (preventing) conflicts. In addition, this panel discusses what remedies are available to users (and online platforms) when disputes get out of control.

Towards responsive law: How user-friendly is the practice of law, and how can we increase the extent to which the law meets the needs of its users? Scholarly research and widely reported incidents in the media give rise to the contention that the law fails to achieve just outcomes. Law and the role it plays and/or can play in resolving conflict have been studied from different perspectives of what ‘justice’ means. As an overarching question might be posed the extent to which law is responsive to the needs of the user (citizens, patients, victims). In this panel we will demonstrate a transition to more responsive practices of law by presenting examples of responsive law as practiced in various places in Dutch society, ranging from the role of law after experiencing harm in healthcare to one of the judiciary’s pilot projects on community justice in Amsterdam and its intervention in school absenteeism, to addressing how legal professionals handle this shift.  

Reparations – A critical reflection: This panel addresses the following question: What scope is there for a reconceptualization of the rules relating to reparation, and what should these rules be? This panel consists of presentations that critically reflect on the normative evolution of reparations since the Factory at Chorzów case, in various jurisdictions and various fields of law.

Our environment is under more pressure than ever before, with changes to the global climate and biodiversity loss resulting in great harm to both people and ecosystems. The actions that we do – or do not - undertake today, will have great implications on the welfare of youth and future generations. Yet action to protect the environment comes at a cost, with many trade-off dilemma’s affecting present day welfare of different groups. Furthermore, traditional legal systems are often ill-equipped to safeguard the interests of future generations. Against this backdrop, this final panel centers around the following key question: how should and can the voice and interests of youth and future generations be represented in conflict prevention and resolution?

Guest speakers include Dr. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Associate Professor of Sustainability Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, Professor Edward Brans, Professor by Special Appointment of Sustainability and Environmental Liability Law at Utrecht University, and Dr. Asmaa Khadim, postdoctoral researcher in Institutions for Conflict Resolution at Leiden University.

Chair: Dr Natalie Dobson, Assistant Professor in climate change and international and European Law at Utrecht University.