Are Citizens' and People's Tribunals an Efficient and Fair Means of Dispute Resolution?
On the one hand, the success of this relatively long-lasting practice relies on the direct involvement of different actors of the civil society such as: law practitioners, journalists, NGOs, activists, as well as members of the targeted sub-community. Such a diversity in the participants is an undeniable asset because it allows varied approaches and personal experience to be taken into consideration in the appreciation of a factual situation or series of events. This can answer some criticisms of the traditional court system where judges are excellent lawyers but may not have enough understanding of special circumstances and sometimes miss calling for expertise.
Replicating the different layers of society in a courtroom can be beneficial since opening the debate wider than a hearing exclusively reserved to law specialists will contribute to a more representative and inclusive reasoning, supposedly resulting on a more legitimate decision. Moreover, privileging Citizens’ and People’s Tribunals may be interesting for the parties seeking an alternative resolution of the dispute particularly in the context of court congestion and delays. It is not certain that this option may reduce the costs borne however, since the investigation would still generate expenses.
On the other hand, Citizens’ and People’s Tribunals raise concerns relating to: the possible lack of consent to jurisdiction ; the absence of res judicata ; the difficulty to impose reparation ; the risk of non execution of the decision, inter alia.
Despite these deficiencies, should Citizens’ and People’s Tribunals be encouraged, or more, generalized, as a supplementing dispute resolution mechanism ?