Alternative Justice Mechanisms Recognition in International Criminal Law
The case provides information on the proposed bill to implement mandatory binding arbitration as an alternative to trial in the resolution of legal cases. In this regard, the proposal might be considered non-constitutional due to the violation of individuals’ right to a trial before a jury. The proposing legislator might be interested in involving a third party in the resolution of the disputes due to the minimized costs of the trial system. However, it is important to find other alternatives to trial that would be constitutional and would not violate people’s rights.
Indeed, while binding arbitration is a possible solution when resolving civil or criminal cases, its mandatory status, as it is claimed in the proposed bill, is an issue that might be considered non-constitutional. The US Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a fair trial conducted by a jury (Seidman Diamond and Salerno 159). For that matter, to make this bill constitutional, the legislator should eliminate the mandatory status from the bill to ensure that the participants of the litigation process have the right to choose a fair trial.
Furthermore, it is relevant to identify several options that might be proposed to litigants as an alternative to trial. Researchers state that some alternative solutions might include a negotiation agreement and reconciliation with victims to avoid trials (Minow 2-3). Such an option is validated by the preservation of the constitutional rights to jury-led trial while allowing litigants to opt for an alternative resolution of a case. In addition, plea bargaining and bail agreements might be implemented as constitutional alternatives to trial (Seidman Diamond and Salerno 138). Such alternatives will allow for resolving the cases without excessive participation of the judicial system while ensuring that the individual’s rights are protected.
The points expressed in the initial post are ones that I wholeheartedly concur with. Any attempt to deprive persons of their constitutional right to a jury trial would be unlawful since it is an essential component of American justice. In order to protect people’s rights, the proposed law must give them a choice between a jury trial and binding arbitration. With this strategy, litigants would have the freedom to choose the best mode of dispute resolution for their particular situation. Additionally, it would guarantee that people have an equal opportunity to exercise their right to a jury trial while retaining the choice of resorting to alternative dispute resolution procedures.
The legislation should take steps to ensure that plaintiffs are adequately aware of their rights and alternatives, in addition to giving them the option between a jury trial and binding arbitration. This will ensure that people can make informed judgments and are aware of the possible consequences of such decisions. In this way, regardless of the technique of conflict resolution chosen, the parties involved will have more faith in the procedure and are more likely to be pleased with the conclusion.
It’s also important to remember that alternatives to litigation, such as settlement negotiations, collaborative law, and mediation, can be successful means to settle conflicts without going to court. These solutions give parties more influence over how their issue will play out and may lead to a more amicable resolution for all parties. Alternative dispute resolution solutions can also help all parties involved save time, money, and worry. Plaintiffs will be able to choose the best form of dispute resolution for their situation by including these options in the proposed statute.
Works Cited
Minow, Martha. “Do Alternative Justice Mechanisms Deserve Recognition in International Criminal Law: Truth Commissions, Amnesties, and Complementarity at the International Criminal Court.” Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-49.
Seidman, Shari, and Jessica Salerno. “Reasons for the Disappearing Jury Trial: Perspectives from Attorneys and Judges.” Louisiana Law Review, vol. 81, no. 9, 2020, pp. 120–42. Web.