Evaluating the Effectiveness of ADR Mechanisms in Cambodia
Implications for Justice Education and Policy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31949/ijeir.v5i1.17100Abstract
This study investigated how well alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods work in Cambodia, and how they relate to education about justice and the creation of policies. Data were collected from 300 respondents (ADR practitioners, conflict resolution practitioners, parties to disputes and the general public) using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis were conducted in SPSS based on the data. As a result of these findings, we have found that ADR mechanisms are highly effective in resolving disputes and improving procedures. Mediation was perceived to be effective (M = 4.15, S.D. = 0.60) among respondents and thus, it is a positive sign that ADR mechanisms are effective. The correlations show that mediation (r = .68, p < .01), reconciliation (r = .66, p < .01) and negotiation (r = .65, p < .01) are very positive for ADR mechanisms. Several regression analyses showed that ADR mechanisms significantly predict the overall effectiveness. The regression model was statistically significant (R² = .52, p < .01) with mediation being the most significant predictor. These results also confirmed the effectiveness of ADR systems with mediation. And, ADR is an effective driver for lower court workload, judicial efficiency and social harmony, in addition to the results. ADR systems also advance justice education through the development of legal awareness and professional and institutional capacities. These findings are in line with the requirement of ADR to be integrated into the system of law education and policy-building.
Keywords:
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Justice Education, Effectiveness, Access to JusticeDownloads
References
Austermiller, S. (2010). Alternative dispute resolution in Cambodia: Challenges and opportunities. East-West Management Institute.
Aristotle. (350 BCE/2009). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Bentham, J. (1789/2000). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press.
Bingham, T. (2010). The rule of law. Penguin Books.
Blake, S., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2012). A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution. Oxford University Press.
Boulle, L. (2005). Mediation: Principles and practice. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J. M. (1997). Is there a case for socialist jurisprudence? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. (1978). Access to justice: The worldwide movement to make rights effective. Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books.
Goldberg, S., Sander, F., Rogers, N., & Cole, S. (2012). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, and other processes (6th ed.). Aspen Publishers.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Low, J., & Quek Anderson, D. (2012). Mediation in Singapore: A practical guide. LexisNexis.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2016). Negotiation and mediation: Theories and practices. Wolters Kluwer.
Mnookin, R. H. (1998). Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Harvard University Press.
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nolan-Haley, J. (2013). Alternative dispute resolution in a nutshell (5th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.
Sander, F. E. A. (1976). Varieties of dispute processing. Federal Rules Decisions, 70, 111–134.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
Sander, F. E. A. (1976). Varieties of dispute processing. In A. Levin & R. Wheeler (Eds.), The Pound Conference: Perspectives on justice in the future (pp. 65–87). West Publishing.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2020). Access to justice for all: A global report. https://www.undp.org
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Alternative dispute resolution in Southeast Asia. https://www.undp.org
Ury, W., Brett, J., & Goldberg, S. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. Jossey-Bass.
Wissler, R. L. (2004). The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1–2), 55–88.
World Bank. (2021). Resolving disputes efficiently: The role of ADR in improving access to justice. https://www.worldbank.org
Yarn, D. H. (1999). Dictionary of conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Phyny Sin, Sarom Mok, Mengheang Hor, Sovantha Ros
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
