Access to Justice
Conciliation, Mediation, Arbitration, Negotiation
Egypt vows to settle land disputes with foreign firms
0147 days
by admin
in Access to Justice
The Egyptian government is seeking to settle disputes over the price of land and other issues with about 20 foreign and local investors in a bid to avoid costly arbitration and rebuild confidence in Egypt, an official has said.
One of the companies involved, Dubai property developer Damac, said in May it had filed an international arbitration case against Egypt over a land row and the conviction of its chairman and owner, Hussain Sajwani.
That case is one of several disputes over the price state land was sold to developers under former President Hosni Mubarak. Many Egyptians accuse Mubarak’s government of doing deals that benefitted the rich elite and top officials at the expense of the rest of the country’s 80 million people.
Several cases claiming land was sold to too cheaply by Mubarak’s government were raised in the courts before the president of 30 years was ousted in February but disputes have gathered momentum. Investor confidence has been shaken.
Al Ahram daily said the cabinet could reach a resolution over Damac and other cases in days, but the senior official on the committee set up to negotiate settlements told Reuters: “I think it will take a little longer.”
The committee is headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.
“We have around 17 to 20 cases now. So what we are trying to do now is instead of going to arbitration we are trying to reach a fair settlement between the two parties,” said the official, who asked not to identified by name.
The official did not list all the firms but confirmed names reported by Al Ahram, which included Damac, another Dubai-based conglomerate Al-Futtaim Group and Omar Effendi, an Egyptian retail chain owned by Saudi firm Anwal.
The committee has settled one of the string of state land sales rows by revising the terms of a farmland deal with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Courts have scrapped land contracts for Egypt’s two largest property developers, Talaat Moustafa Group and Palm Hills and two former government ministers have been sentenced to jail over graft in state land sales.
The committee official said most disputes involved rows over the price of land sales or over the price gas would be supplied to industries.
“Some contracts signed before were harmful for the Egyptian government. The price of land was very low. We are trying to reach a fair settlement by which investment will be safe and the contract respected and at the same time give the government and country their rights,” the official said, adding that arbitration was a costly process.
“We are trying our best to attract foreign as well as Egyptian investment.”
Source: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/egypt-vows-settle-land-disputes-with-foreign-firms-418454.html
CHT troubled by land rows
0147 days
Bangladesh is one of those developing countries where access to justice is very difficult. People wait for years to get their rights. Following news is an example where government istself is a barrier t o justice.
“The government is sitting on thousands of complaints about land ownerships in the hills as the Chittagong Hill Tracts Land Dispute Resolution Commission has remained inactive since its inception 10 years ago.
The commission was unable to resolve a single dispute in the region.
Land disputes in CHT have become acute as the government neglected the land rights of indigenous people, and conducted sponsored demographic engineering by settling Bangalees in the hills over the past decades, said observers.
Meanwhile, land disputes resulted in eight clashes between indigenous hill people and Bangalee settlers in different parts of the region claiming 14 lives only in the last two and a half years, according to news reports.
Traditional community land ownership of the indigenous hill people in CHT declined to 28.76 percent from 76.21 between 1978 and 2009, says a study.
Over the same period, possession of land by government agencies increased to 25.77 percent from 5.22 percent, found a study on CHT land conducted by Chairman of Dhaka University Economics Department Dr Abul Barakat.
The forest department announced 2,18,000 acres of land as reserved, all of which used to be regarded as community land of the indigenous people.
Only in Bandarban the government allocated 1,605 plots consisting 40,077 acres of land to Bangalees for commercial rubber plantations.
Many of these pieces of land used to be owned by indigenous hill people based on traditional verbal agreements. Now they find themselves ousted from their land that they had owned for generations.
The five-member land commission, an outcome of the CHT Peace Accord 1997, sat only once, before the government suspended its activities for an indefinite period last December.
The suspension came as the indigenous communities demanded the commission to work in line with the provisions of the peace treaty, and identify ownerships of land before conducting any land survey.
Before the suspension, people filed 5,000 applications with it regarding their disputed pieces of land. “But the number of land disputes in CHT is even higher,” said Abdul Hamid, secretary of the commission.
A huge number of applications might have been submitted to the commission if its activities had not been suspended, he said.
Representatives of the indigenous hill people oppose a few provisions of the Land Commission Act-2001. They say that some of its provisions contradict the CHT Peace Accord. They have been protesting the commission’s activities and demanding removal of its chairman.
“Indigenous hill people have lost faith in the commission chairman due to his controversial activities. So far, he did everything unilaterally, ignoring all commission members including me,” said Raja Devasish Roy, Chakma circle chief.
The government appointed Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury as the commission chairman on July 19, 2009. On March 14 last year, the commission office was set up in Khagrachhari.
Rather than holding discussions with the members to find ways to improve operations of the commission, Justice Khademul called several administrative meetings without bothering to include its members, sources among the indigenous population claimed.
The debate between the commission and the leaders of the indigenous hill people started when Justice Khademul proposed to carry out a land survey in CHT.
It has to be done by the government through the land ministry after resolving all land disputes, not before it, the leaders said.
“If the land survey is carried out before solving the disputes, then it will be very difficult to identify the real ownership of any piece of land,” said PCJSS leader Sajib Chakma.
Under the traditional land ownership system of the indigenous communities, they used to possess land based on verbal agreements without any written document, which used to be respected.
Over the decades the government did not recognise the traditional land ownership system in CHT.
Now most of the indigenous people lost their land due to document forgery by Bangalee settlers, and 62 percent indigenous people of CHT are passing their days in extreme poverty, the study conducted by Dr Barakat says.
Justice Khademul however said, “Whatever decisions I have made in the commission, those were made according to the law, and maintaining quorum.”
The government has yet to make any move to bring an end to this deadlock.
State Minister for CHT Affairs Dipangkar Talukder told The Daily Star, “You will know if the government makes any move.
Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=200803
INDONESIA: Conviction of Ahmadyah victim undermines constitutional protections
0163 days
by admin
in Human Rights
What you will say about the following conviction?
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is disturbed by the punitive decision of the Indonesian Court on August 15, 2011 to jail an innocent Ahmadi Muslim who protected himself during a mob attack, which reveals the impartiality of the judiciary and the legal community.
Deden Sudjana was sentenced to six months imprisonment by the court, for simply protecting the house the mob were attacking. Meanwhile, the 12 men who were responsible for brutally killing three Ahmadi Muslims in an attack in February 2011, were only sentenced to between three and six months imprisonment.
Some 1,500 people attacked the home of an Ahmadiyah community leader in Cikeusik, west Java in February. Sudjana was hit with a machete and almost had his hand severed during the mob attack. Head of security for the Indonesian Ahmadiyah Congregation (JAI) at the time, Sudjana was detained since May for allegedly inciting the attack. In its judgment, the court ruled that he had disobeyed a police order to leave the scene, and had been filmed punching another man. He was thus convicted of articles 212 and 315.1 of the Criminal Code; resisting state officers and maltreatment, respectively.
The decision is senseless and embarrassing, a travesty of justice. The lenient sentences handed out to those convicted of killing three Ahmadis in July raised questions regarding judicial impartiality and upholding of constitutional protections (see AHRC-PRL-034-2011), which have now been spotlighted again. The two verdicts indicate that Indonesia’s criminal justice system is not able to deliver justice independent from religious considerations. Indonesia’s judicial commission must act on this miscarriage of justice and push for reforms that will truly ensure a fair and impartial justice process.
Indonesia today is increasingly seeing extremists push their agenda forward, mostly with the use of violence, resulting in the loss of life and damage to property. The Indonesian government has taken no effective steps to stop or prevent such activities, which will slowly erode the country’s secular values.
Similarly, the Indonesian courts and legal system have shown a complete disregard for the basic rule of law, and have not taken up their mandate of protecting the constitutional rights of Indonesian citizens.
The AHRC urges for a review of both verdicts, and calls upon the Indonesian government and courts to ensure that all religious and other minorities are adequately protected.
AHRC-STM-106-2011
August 18, 2011
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
For more information see also:
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.
Qualities That Define a Good Mediator
0256 days
by admin
in ADR Systems
Maggiolo,W.A. (1985) have defined following qualities in a good mediator in his book “Techniques of Mediation”.
The patience of Job.
• The sincerity of a bulldog.
• Characteristics of the English.
• The wit of the Irish.
• The physical endurance of the marathon runner.
• The broken field dodging abilities of a halfback.
• The guile of Machiavelli.
• The personality-probing skills of a good psychiatrist.
• The confidence-retaining characteristic of a mute.
• The hide of a rhinoceros.• The wisdom of Solomon.
• Demonstrated integrity and impartiality.
• Fundamental belief in human values and potential, tempered by the ability to assess personal weaknessesas well as strengths.
• Hard-nosed ability to analyze what is available in contrast to what might be desirable.
• Sufficient personal drive and ego, qualified by willingness to be self-effacing.
How many of us have these qualities..?
Master the art of negotiation
0264 days
by admin
in ADR Systems
Many people believe that negotiations are “all or nothing”, and that there has to be one winner and one loser. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the goal of negotiation is most certainly getting what you want, the fact is that the best deals (the ones that stick) incorporate terms and ideas from both parties.
In this article, we’ll provide some tactics and tips that good negotiators use to get what they want. These suggestions may be used in virtually any negotiation process.
Before the negotiation
Prior to entering any formal negotiation, it is important for an individual to think about what he or she wants to achieve from the process. To that end, it makes sense to put on paper specific goals or desirable outcomes.
Be optimistic. Ask yourself what would be a “home run” in your deal? This could be as simple as the other party conceding entirely to your wishes. Next, individuals should identify several fall-back positions that they’d be comfortable with that would still get the deal done. The idea is to have thought out as many scenarios as possible.
The next task should be to identify (or try to identify) any potential weaknesses in the opposing party’s position. For example, if you’re buying a car and know that the seller needs money quickly, this is valuable information that can be used in negotiation. Identification of weaknesses is important because it may allow the people that have done their homework to capitalise on the other party’s weaknesses and turn negotiations in their own favour, or at the very least help both parties to better identify an area of middle ground.
Another pre-negotiation exercise, and it is something that most people don’t do but should, is to come up with a list of reasons why their proposal would also be beneficial to the opposing party.
The logic is to then bring up the key points of this list in the actual negotiation with the counterparty in the hope that the points will advance the cause and/or help to identify some common ground. Using real estate as an example, perhaps one party – in this case a company – could argue that its bid for a particular property is more favourable than others (even though it’s lower in terms of pounds) because it is an all-cash offer, as opposed to a riskier financing or a stock swap.
On a personal rather than a corporate level, pointing out you’re a first-time buyer, so you don’t need to sell your home before you can buy, could help get a deal done. And having mortgage finance in place before the offer is made can also be a big plus.
By specifically pointing out the advantages to both parties, the negotiator increases the odds of getting the deal done.
During the negotiation:
In person: Ideally, each party should identify their goals and objectives at the outset. This allows each participant in the negotiation to know where the other stands. It also establishes a basis for a give-and-take conversation. At this point, each party may then offer its fall-back proposals and counter proposals in order to hammer out a deal.
That said, beyond the initial volley of proposals, there are also other things that negotiators can do to enhance their chances of turning the deal in their favour. Let’s use body language analysis as an example.
Was your proposal well received? Positive signs include nodding of the head and direct eye contact. Negative signs include folding of the arms (across the chest), aversion of the eyes or a subtle head shake as if to say “no”.
Pay attention next time you ask someone a question. You’ll see that more often than not, a person’s body language can yield a lot of information regarding his or her underlying feelings.
By phone: If a negotiation is done by phone, body language can’t be determined. This means that the negotiator must do his best to analyse his counterpart’s voice.
As a general rule, extended pauses usually mean that the opposing party is hesitant or is pondering the offer. However, sudden exclamations or an unusually quick response (in a pleasant voice) may indicate that the opposing party is quite favourable to the proposal and just needs a little nudge to seal the deal.
By mail: Negotiations done through the mail (such as residential property transactions) are a different animal altogether.
Here are some tips:
- Words or phrases that leave ambiguity may signal that a party is open to a given proposal. Look specifically for words such as “can”, “possibly”, “perhaps”, “maybe” or “acceptable”. Also, if the party uses a phrase such as “anxiously awaiting your reply” or “looking forward to it”, this may be a signal that the party is enthusiastic and/or optimistic that an agreement may soon be reached.
- When the opposing party makes an initial offer or a counter proposal, see if you can incorporate some of those ideas with your own and then ink a deal on the spot. If compromise on a particular issue is not possible, propose other alternatives that you think would be favourable to both parties.
- Finally, while all agreements should be sealed with a hand shake, a more formal contract memorialising the negotiation is a must. To that end, have an attorney draft a formal contract soon after the negotiation process is completed and make certain that it is signed by all parties in a timely manner.
No agreement? No worries
If an agreement cannot be reached in one sitting or one phone call, leave the door open to future negotiations. If possible, schedule further meetings. Don’t worry – if worded appropriately, your request won’t appear overly anxious. To the contrary, it will come across as though you sincerely believe that a deal can be worked out and that you are willing to work to make that happen.
In between negotiations, try to mentally review what took place during the initial meeting. Did the opposing party reveal any weaknesses? Did he or she imply that other factors may have an impact on the deal? Pondering these questions prior to the next meeting can give the negotiator a leg up on his or her counterpart.
Finally, if an agreement simply can’t be reached, agree to part as friends. Never, under any circumstances, burn your bridges.
Glenn Curtis started his career as an equity analyst at Cantone Research, a New Jersey-based regional brokerage firm. He has since worked as an equity analyst and a financial writer at a number of print/web publications and brokerage firms including Registered Representative Magazine, Advanced Trading Magazine, Worldlyinvestor.com, RealMoney.com, TheStreet.com and Prudential Securities. Curtis has also held Series 6,7,24 and 63 securities licenses.
