Magister Legum - LLM

While there is an increasing focus within peace and conflict studies on how local contexts affect peacebuilding work, scholars have failed to investigate how local tools might promote local reconciliation processes. Simultaneously, the field of community mediation has exclusively been studied in contexts not directly related to armed conflicts. In this thesis, I bring these two fields together, addressing both these gaps by asking what effect community mediation has on local reconciliation. I argue that, by creating greater social cohesion and more vibrant communities, while legitimizing non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms, community mediation promotes the reconciliation process of its community. To address this question, I analyze the mediation conducted in Medellín, Colombia, by Juntas de Acción Comunal, which are local neighborhood committees. I conceptualize reconciliation by both discussing what reconciliation means at different levels of society and developing a set of everyday indicators collaboratively with a diverse array of people from Medellín. My analysis strongly supports my hypothesis, while offering it some nuance. I find that, while community mediation does promote local reconciliation, it can only do so in contexts of relative absence of violence.

Text in Afrikaans with summaries in Afrikaans and English / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ens regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar meet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheemsregtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formele regsproses te integreer. / Private Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans, abstract in Afrikaans and English / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ons regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar moet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheems regtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formate regsproses te integreer. / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 van 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / LL. D. (Private Law) / Private Law

Text in Afrikaans with summaries in Afrikaans and English / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ens regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar meet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheemsregtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formele regsproses te integreer. / Private Law / LL.D.