Resolving Contract Disputes in Ghana

CAN JUDGMENT DEBTS SERVE AS CATALYST FOR RAPPROCHMÉNT ON USING GHANA AS CENTRE FOR COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION? 

By Saeed Musah-Kaleepha

I will appoint a Sole Commissioner to thoroughly examine the judgment debt and negotiated settlements conundrum and recommend for immediate implementation, legislative and systems remediation. The overall purpose should be to refashion and systematise the procedures for negotiating, contracting, executing, monitoring and resolving disputes involving business transactions where government is a party. In particular, Ghanaian fora must be the primary venue for the resolution of disputes over contracts that are performed in Ghana.

That was President John D. Mahama in his Critical Policy Actions, September 4, 2012. He expresses the need to purge government of the numerous judgment debts and in his words "negotiated settlements conundrum".

This write-up is meant to welcome the President's call in part and also to take the call a step further from a practitioner's perspective.

The very fact that business agreements are signed and executed means there is a possibility that differences might arise over those contracts. They may not necessarily be disputes but in some cases lack of clarity on aspects of the contract would mean the parties might require assistance in establishing such clarity. It is for this reason that parties include dispute resolution clause or an arbitration clause, by whatever name called, in their contract documents.

Over the years Ghanaian/state officials have demonstrated their preference, perhaps by deed, for choosing a foreign forum for the resolution of commercial disputes involving the Government of Ghana. The widely patronised of such institutions are the London Court of Arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague and the Arbitration Centre of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) based in Paris among others.

The implication is that both parties will have to travel to these locations with their documents, counsel and support staff. And worse of all hire foreign lawyers to represent them if they are to be represented by counsel since in most of those jurisdiction, our lawyers do not have license to practice there. Two cases or narrations give us a good picture of this phenomenon.

First, when Mr. Theophilus Cudjoe, former Executive Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) [now Economic and Organised Crimes Office (EOCO)], appeared before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament to answer questions relating to the CP judgment debt case, he said he had to carry four boxes of documents to London whenever they had to go for a hearing on the matter before the arbitral tribunal. 

In the second case we are told by former President Kufuor that in the Vodafone case, the Government of Ghana had to engage the services of a UK lawyer, a Queens Counsel (QC) for that matter, to represent the republic at the rate of about five hundred pound sterling per hour. This probably does not include other incidental costs.

These and several other inconveniences are some of the daily experiences for both corporate and private interests who have issues that has to be resolved in the corporate arena.

In January this year, this author was engaged by an institution in Ghana to provide some training services and the contract document states that all disputes shall be resolve at the International Chamber of Commerce with Ghana as the place for hearing. The author immediately requested that aspect of the contract to be revised and his preference for a resolution under Ghana's Act 651 was accepted. One would imagine what will happen to many others who sign similar contracts with that institution with such a dispute resolution clause. Truth is, the contract sum can hardly pay for the fees of the panel, travel and other incidental costs.

This brings us to the issue of using a foreign forum with Ghana as the place for arbitration. At least one state institution in the regulatory sector is reported to have adopted this practice because of certain challenges it encountered in earlier cases including fees, choice of law and procedure.

There however two pieces of legislation that seem to give foreign investors some latitude in the choice of forum for the resolution of disputes with the Government of Ghana. These are the Free Zones Act and the Ghana Investment Promotions Act. Section 32(3) of the Free Zones Act, 1995 (Act 504) provides "[w]here in respect of any dispute, there is disagreement between the licensee and the Government as to the method of dispute settlement to be adopted, the choice of the licensee shall prevail." This is an almost verbatim quotation of section 29(3) of the Ghana Investment Promotions Centre Act, 1994 (Act 478) except for the replacement of the word 'investor' with the word 'licensee'. These two laws provide that where government is party to a trade dispute involving a foreign company, the dispute can be resolved either in accordance with the rules of procedure of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), or within the framework of any bilateral or multilateral agreement between Ghana and the country that the foreign party is a national or in accordance with any national or international machinery for the settlement of investment disputes as agreed by the parties.

It is recognised that governments' attempt to promote investment by creating a congenial investment or business climate. Such a climate must of necessity extend to both the local investor and the foreign investor whether that investor is in partnership with government or in partnership with other private citizens. Therefore while section 32 of Act 504 and section 29 of Act 478 have sought to promote 'amicable settlement' of commercial disputes, this resolve has been bolstered by the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act, 2010 (Act 798), which in itself has replaced the good old Arbitration Act, 1961 (Act 38). And most importantly the ADR Act has also accommodated the New York Convention which is essentially meant for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards.

The global trend for promoting the resolution of commercial disputes locally is through the establishment of local dispute resolution centres. Though there exists the Ghana Association of Chartered Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA) and other ADR agencies their presence can be very much felt if there is greater collaboration between players in commerce and industry and government agencies.

Another trend is the establishment of dispute resolution centres under the national chambers of commerce. Such an establishment carries with it the respect of the chamber of commerce and serves as a rallying ground for all business interests. Key examples are the Arbitration Institutes of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the Finland Chamber of Commerce. And it is the case in Bulgaria, Russia, Bombay, Oslo and Hamburg among others. The Canada Chamber of Commerce however has a national committee that operates under the ICC rules. One is almost certain that GHACMA and as the leading ADR institution in Ghana and other ADR agencies will be more than willing to partner in any effort meant to establish a dispute resolution centre in Ghana just as they lent their support in the establishment of the Court -Connected Mediation of the Judicial Service of Ghana.

While the President's call renews hope among the dispute resolution fraternity, it is expected that any effort to resolve disputes in Ghana may have to be the use of a non-state forum since parties (especially foreign parties) have fears of bias in favour of the state alongside the effect of being infected with the delays, bureaucracy and sometimes inefficiencies of the public sector. These are debilitating factors which motivates (Alternative) Dispute Resolution practitioners to often profess the need for the establishment of non-state justice systems.

In this regard the key first step, is to empower the existing ADR instituions and collaborate more effectively with the Ghana National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GNCCI) and other chamlbers of commerce in Ghana. Then we can begin to expect that some progress will be made especially in terms of the dispute resolution clauses that are fist of all contained in contract documents which can be made to reflect an intent to have issues resolved in Ghana

Significantly, one factor that influences the choice of forum is the institutional arrangement that exists to ensure professionalism and the conformity of the rules for dispute resolution in line with globally accepted standards before even consideration is given to the choice of arbitrator or mediator that is empaneled to handle the matter.

Finally, there is also the need to develop dispute resolution services for different professions to make room for the nuances and usages of those trades and institutions. Indeed in the UK for instance, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has a dispute resolution section which handles claims withing the built environment. And foreclosure mediation is gaining currency in the United States of America. We are already doing well with labour dispute resolution although we could be doing better if the National Labour Commission had not been a state agency.

International Trends in Mediation

International Trends in Mediation
 By Irena Vanenkova

I once had the honour to meet the first woman in Space, Valentina Tereshkova. She said something that has always stuck in my mind: “Once you have been in Space you appreciate how small and fragile the earth is”. She meant that Space is a good place to be if you want put things into perspective. So that’s where I went, in an imaginary Sputnik, when I was asked to present some thoughts on international trends in mediation at the 2012 Asian Mediation Association Annual Meeting.

From the higher vantage point, I quickly found that there are established trends, emerging trends and fads, and that no trends are established everywhere. Likewise, some emerging trends are nowhere in most places but closer to being established in others. And fads, the trends of the future, may already have achieved trend status somewhere.

Here’s a summary of my view from space and I would very much welcome your views! It is an important subject. Trend analysis is used for future-spotting and to inspire new thinking and developments. Trends keep us a step ahead, positive, young at heart.

Established trends
Of course, mediation is itself an established trend – a prevailing tendency that is gaining momentum. But what are the established trends within that established trend?

* First, I see a clear awakening of the user – especially the repeat user. It is starting to dawn on them that mediation can help get what they need: achieve goals, reduce risk, secure certainty, take less time, cost less, save face and preserve reputation. This is leading to a slow but steady shift from a supply-led field to a demand led profession.
* Second, I see a trend from passive forms of mediation to assertive practices, and from facilitative mediation to the more evaluative style.
* Third, arbitration institutions embracing mediation more enthusiastically. A quick glance at the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration proves the point, and there are many other examples.

Emerging Trends

Peering down at earth from orbit:
* One can see governments readying themselves for regulating this field. They are doing so because mediators and providers do not self-regulate convincingly on quality. Training and education are at sophisticated levels and the field is now starting to credential knowledge, skills and experience – some of it transparent and credible, but some of it opaque and lacking conviction. This emerging trend toward proper credentialing needs to be more sustained and established, more international and more serious and credible, to head off government regulation.
From the Sputnik, I perceived other emerging trends:
* A trend from voluntary to increasingly “mandatory” mediation, or at least, as some would say, being “robustly encouraged”. Court annexed and connected programs are increasingly common.
* Mediation advocacy skills are now becoming a clear focus area based on training.
* There are emerging trends towards hybrid forms of mediation and arbitration and a greater demand for innovative tailored processes – rather than just practicing what was originally taught.
 * Collaborative law is giving new credence to the expression Amicable Dispute Resolution, a practice area where contentious resolution forms are not even considered (at least not by the professionals in the room).
* There is an emerging trend towards deal mediation – that is, using mediators to help parties make a deal even where there is not dispute, just a desire for a better and more sustainable deal. A new notion of “counsel to the deal” is emerging.
* And I see a clear emerging trend towards gradually higher success rates as mediators become more skilled and experienced.


Fads

Fads are a bit harder to see from space because they are less widespread. A fad is more of a burst of interest, a localised bandwagon that can, perhaps, morph into a trend. Among the fads I noticed were:
* ADR providers collaborating with one another, often for the first time on a sincere, added value level.
* There is a fad for young mediator initiatives.
* Ethical codes that are backed up by enforcement mechanisms having real teeth (such as the withdrawal of credentialing in severe cases) is an encouraging fad.
* Online dispute resolution is also a fad and may well become a trend.
* Another fad, hopefully one that will quickly turn into a proper trend, is for professional mediation bodies on a national and regional basis. MSB in Australia, HKMAAL in Hong Kong, SPIDR in Nigeria, the APFM in the US – these are all the start of professional bodies at national level. The Asian Mediation Association and the European Mediation Network Initiative are examples of something similar happening regionally, inspiring the birth of the African Mediation Association


Conclusion

This trip in orbit photographing the trends is clearly all very encouraging. Mediation is maturing, and as it does so it experiments more, becomes more versatile, more credible, more respected, more trusted, and at the same time is building the foundations of a properly recognized independent profession. We need to share and develop these ideas because, by surfacing them, we build a better future for all mediation stakeholders, as well as ourselves.

Source: Kluwer Mediation Blog

Alternative dispute res...: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Alternative dispute res...: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Customary Arbitration in an Evolving Africa

Just as I am beginning to settle back into my bourgeois American lifestyle, I wake up this morning to find this article in the Times (see this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/nyregion/isaac-osei-taxi-driver-in-new-york-and-chief-in-ghana.html ) on a Ghanaian chief who spends most of his year in New York overseeing a taxi operation with his wife. While in Ghana last week, I had the opportunity to speak with several chiefs who participated in our mediation training. It was fascinating to speak with them about the pressures they face as their traditional dispute resolution is, fitfully, integrated into the judicial system of an emerging liberal democracy.

Ghana has long had a court system on the Anglo-American model, with a Supreme Court, intermediate appellate courts, and a variety of trial courts. The trial courts are far too few to adequately cover the entire country, however, resulting in huge backlogs. With the reach of the courts limited this way, the traditional system of dispute resolution conducted by chiefs remains vital. Every city, town, and village has a chief who sits at the top of the social pyramid for that community. Chiefs can be quite well-off in relative terms, as they receive a share of what can be considered rents or taxes on the property in their domain. Their main public responsibility is to resolve local disputes. A party with a grievance goes to the chief to request a hearing. The chief then calls the respondent to appear at the chief’s palace. The parties indicate their consent to the jurisdiction of the chief by paying a nominal sum of money. The chief holds a hearing in which the parties are entitled to submit evidence and argue their cases. Then the chief issues a ruling, which has traditionally been oral. The system is, for all practical purposes, arbitration. It is referred to in Ghana as customary arbitration.

As an assertive generation of modern lawyers and judges pushes the country to extend the reach of the rule of law and to diminish the force of traditional hierarchies built on disparities of wealth, status and power, the system of customary arbitration is being challenged in important ways. The Ghana ADR Act of 2010 includes a set of fairly detailed provisions governing customary arbitration. These provisions could end up diluting the power of the chiefs both at the stage of compelling arbitration and in the enforcement of awards. Coupled with recent judicial decisions, the ADR Act suggests that chiefs have lost much of the power they traditionally had to compel parties to appear. Further, the Act contains a rule on judicial review that seems intended to place the judiciary in a supervisory role. Section 112 of the 2010 Act allows a party to apply to a court to set aside the award on the grounds that the award:

(a) was made in breach of the rules of natural justice,
(b) constitutes a miscarriage of justice, or
(c) is in contradiction with the known customs of the area concerned.

Those are, potentially, very broad grounds for review. The chiefs that I spoke with felt that they were not given a full opportunity to participate in the ADR Act’s creation (this point was disputed by lawyers and law professors involved in the Act’s drafting and passage). They see the Act as an attack on a system of dispute resolution that has served Ghana well for centuries. The full import of the Act will not be known until the courts have the chance to implement its provisions. Clearly much remains to be done to forge a workable national dispute resolution system that respects both the rule of law and traditional social norms. But Ghana deserves credit for the audacity of its approach. Given its history of peaceful dispute resolution, Ghana is better positioned than almost any other African country to pull it off.


Credit: ADR Prof Blog http://www.indisputably.org/?p=2592

COMMUNIQUÉ OF 3RD INT. AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONFERENCE JUL 26 - 28, 2011, ACCRA

Third International Africa Peace and Conflict Resolution (PCR) Conference 2011
July 26 - 28, 2011, Accra, Ghana
Webpage: www.csus.edu/org/capcr www.ghacma.org/conference.html


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!


COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED AT THE END OF THE 3RD INTERNATIONAL AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONFERENCE HELD IN ACCRA, GHANA FROM JULY 26 TO 28, 2011

Conference Theme: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Peace Studies in Africa, 15 years later: Lessons and New Directions.

The delegates at the 3rd international Africa Peace and Conflict Resolution Conference organised by the Centre for African Peace and Conflict Resolution (CAPCR) of California State University, Sacramento, USA and the Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA) give regard to the fact that conflict in its varied forms and manifestations is inevitable in our communities, business places and in our governance systems;

They acknowledge the downward conflict trend and increasing level of democratization in Africa, as positive developments that demand more robust, sustained efforts at ADR and peace studies;

They find paucity of evaluation data and best practices on peace and conflict resolution in Africa;
They are concerned about the negative effects of conflicts on the African continent, especially the ones that result in the loss of millions of precious lives;

They recognise the importance of engaging governments, the business community, religious organisations, traditional authorities, civil society and other stakeholders on peacemaking and peace building initiatives;

They are conscious of the need to educate the public about issues of peace and conflict resolution, as well as sensitization on issues of social justice that aggravate violence;

They are aware of the gap that exists in the number of dispute resolution practitioners and peace makers across the world and Africa in particular;

They appreciate the special workshop on complex/ multiparty mediation, facilitated by Mr. Daniel Yamshon;

They are committed to educating the public and highlighting issues of peace and social justice as well as training and building the capacity of peace makers and dispute resolution practitioners and institutions;

They recall the challenge faced by ADR and peace building institutions in accessing funding to promote peace initiatives and institutionalize ADR;

They acknowledge with gratitude and promise the new, enabling legislations on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in several African countries, in Ghana and Uganda in particular;

They realise the indigenous appeal of Alternative Dispute Resolution within the African context;

They are mindful of the call to institutionalise Dispute Resolution training and practice at critical levels of society and nation;

They are satisfied by the resolve of academia to introduce or expand the teaching of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a degree programme at the graduate or undergraduate level;


They embrace the critical appraisal of the role of technology in dispute resolution and its facility in the form of online dispute resolution (ODR);

They commend the efforts being made to mainstream ADR in the judiciary thereby improving upon the justice delivery system, without recreating or exacerbating the problems that necessitated ADR;

They are convinced of the immense potential of ADR in increasing access to justice, decongesting the courts of backlog of cases, and providing justice in a manner that is speedy, cost effective and which satisfies the interests of disputing parties;

They are determined to empower the youth and women in peace initiatives and in dispute resolution practice and leadership;

They know that the youth are not only the most affected in any conflict but are also our most effective means of transferring knowledge and continuing a conscious culture of peace and effective dispute resolution;

Therefore
1. They commit themselves to work to prevent conflicts in Africa and where it has already occurred, to work to resolve the conflicts in a timely and effective manner.
2. They accept the challenge to institutionalise the training and practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution at critical levels, including expansion of peace and conflict studies curricular in secondary and university education.
3. They call on the rest of Africa to follow the examples of Ghana and Uganda to enact appropriate ADR legislations.
4. They request the Bar and the Bench to adopt proactive measures in mainstreaming ADR in Africa.
5. They encourage organisations and institutions engaged in peace building and dispute resolution to empower the youth and women in their efforts aimed at making the world a more peaceful place to live in.
6. They entreat African traditional authorities to maintain the African appeal of their dispute resolution processes while embracing ADR.
7. They invite religious leaders and religious organisations to empahsise peaceful co-existence to their congregants.
8. They call on ADR and peace building institutions to adopt measures aimed at attracting funding for their purposes.
9. They call on governments, the business community and donor agencies to support the course of ADR and peace building institutions.
10. They recommend the development and implementation of evaluation instruments for macro level assessment of the success of peace and conflict resolution projects and activities.
11. They further agree on the need for the creation of a sustainable peace and conflict resolution network of peace, and to hold the international peace and conflict resolution conference every 3 years; and resolved to hold the next conference in South Africa.

Delegates expressed their immense gratitude to the Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA) as well as its staff for successfully hosting the conference and for giving them a feel of the Ghanaian hospitality and also to the Centre for African Peace and Conflict Resolution (CAPCR) for instituting the conference. They also expressed their gratitude to Her Ladyship the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, Justice Georgina T. Wood for delivering the concluding keynote address; Hon. Martin Amidu, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice for delivering the opening keynote address; Prof. Ernest Uwazie for the conference opening address; Lt. Gen. Arnold Quainoo, Executive Director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution (CENCOR) for chairing the opening ceremony and for hosting the welcome reception and the workshop on Multi-Party/Complex Dispute Resolution at CENCOR; His Lordship Mr. Justice S.A. Brobbey, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana for participating in the Town Hall Discussion on ADR and Peace Studies in Africa; Mr. Justice Bawa Akamba, Justice of the Appeal Court of Ghana and Director of the Judicial Training Institute for gracing the opening ceremony; Nana Dr. S.K.B. Asante, Chairman of the Ghana Arbitration Centre for his participation and offering important insights in the practice of Arbitration; Dr. Robin Carter, Associate Dean of the College of Health and Human Services of California State University for chairing a paper presentation panel; Mr. Austin A. Gamey, Chief Executive Officer of Gamey and Gamey Group for chairing a paper presentation panel; Mrs. Chris Dadzie, Lawyer and former senior staff member of the Ghana Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) for chairing a paper presentation panel; Dr. Sylvester Bowie, Chair of the CAPCR Board and Associate Professor of Social Work at California State University, Sacramento, USA for chairing a paper presentation panel; Mr. Martin C. Nwosu, General Secretary of Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA) for chairing a paper presentation panel; Miss Joyce N.N. Oku for serving as Rapporteur General at the conference; Mr. Saeed Musah-Khaleepha for ably coordinating the conference planning and arrangements, and kind remarks and presents from the California delegation through Prof. Uwazie and Ms. Ellen Taylor of the California Lawyers for the Arts.

The delegates also commend and appreciate the visionary leadership and landmark ADR contributions of Prof. Ernest Uwazie, Director of Center for African Peace and Conflict Resolution (CAPCR) of California State University, Sacramento, USA; and Professor Kofi Quashigah, President of Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA).

They acknowledge presenters at the conference for providing enlightenment through their respective presentations and interactions with the audience:
Prof. Ernest Uwazie
Mr. Daniel Yamshon
Rev. Sr. Barr. Ijeoma Njoku
Mr. J.S.T. Abbossey
Miss Ijeoma Ononogbu
Dr. Ephraim S. Essiesn
Miss Joy O.S. Ogaji
Dr. Chniyere Comfort Ani
Mr. Ahmed Baba Yahaya
Mr. Adebgoyega Adebayo Karim
Mr. Arinze Ngwube
Rev. Dr. Cletus Obasi
Dr. Sunday Ogbodo
Mr. Saeed Musah-Khaleepha
Dr. Jose Pascal da Rocha

They further acknowledge the following organisations and their representatives:
1. Center for African Peace and Conflict Resolution (CAPCR), California State University, Sacramento, USA
2. Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA)
3. African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), South Africa
4. Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, Lagos, Nigeria
5. California Lawyers for the Arts, California, USA
6. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Lagos
7. Ashaiman ADR Centre, Ghana
8. The Judicial Service of Ghana
9. Ghana Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s Department
10. Centre for Conflict Resolution (CENCOR), Ghana
11. Ghana Arbitration Centre
12. Afripeace & Development Foundation, USA
13. Justice and Peace Commission
14. El-Shiloh Foundation
15. Catholic Secretariat, Ho
16. Assemblies of God, Assin Fosu, Ghana
17. Young mediators and Negotiators of Nigeria
18. Spiritan Int. School of Theology & Evangelism
19. University of Cape Coast
20. International Islamic University, Malaysia
21. Creative Advantage International
22. Centre for Peace and Strategic Studies, Univ. of Illorin, Nig.
23. School of Law, Warwick University, UK
24. Christ Mission Foundation

Contacts:
USA: uwazieee@csus.edu Ghana: saeed@ghacma.org

Mediation Stressed over Court Rulings in Civil Cases

Mediation Stressed over Court Rulings in Civil Cases

International Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Peace Education and Conflict Management and Resolution Conference, Accra 2011

Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA)

And

The Center for African Peace & Conflict Resolution,CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

Present

The Third International Africa Peace and Conflict Resolution Conference on:
ADR AND PEACE STUDIES IN AFRICA, 15 YEARS LATER: LESSONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

JULY 26‐28, 2011

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and related conflict resolution programmes emerged in Africa in the mid 1990s, followed by peace studies in the 2000s. During the said periods, many government and educational institutions and non‐governmental organizations have been created in different parts of Africa; various related programs and projects have been developed or implemented, and certain enabling legislations, policies and institutions created. However, there is paucity of knowledge or research on the key lessons and networking prospects of these various peace and conflict resolution initiatives and their effectiveness in reducing conflicts, increasing peace and development, and promoting social justice.

This 3rd international meeting, following earlier meetings in 1998 in Accra and 2008 in Addis Ababa, will attempt to fill the void by identifying the best practices or lessons of current programs, projects and initiatives and assessing gains or progress achieved; it will also examine the state and nature of regional network in peace building and propose future directions. Filling the current void will provide opportunity for self assessment and reflection among advocates, practitioners and scholars, analysis of common practices and experiences, and ensure sustainability of emergent popularity and promise of peace studies and conflict resolution projects in Africa.

The meeting will also facilitate regional networking and development of common standards of ethics for ADR and/or conflict resolution practice and training as well as articulate evaluation benchmarks. In your abstract, please include your title, 100 word descriptions of your data, key findings and recommendations, plus your institution/organization and contact details.

CALL FOR PAPERS
Deadline for submission of Abstracts
May 2, 2011.
Send proposals to: uwazieee@csus.edu

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSIONS
Only online submissions will be accepted.


Abstracts must be 100 words and should include your title, description of your data, key findings and recommendations as well as your institution/organization with which you are affiliated or identified.

Submissions must be in MS Word.
Font style: Calibri body.
Font size: 12 with double spacing.

Early submission is strongly encouraged.
Please endeavor to use the same email address for all correspondence.

Full Papers
Papers must be of of 15‐20 pages, including illustrations/tables and references.

Interactive Presentations
An interactive presentation, for the purposes of this conference, is either a photographic presentation or a video‐graphic presentation. Some researches are easily adapted to this style, especially in the area of case studies and role plays. If your presentation is in this category, please indicate it in your proposal and also indicate what accessory it may require.

Panel Sessions
Proposals for panel discussions must, in addition to satisfying the requirements for abstracts and paper presentations, include a 50 – 75 word rationale to appear in the conference programme, participant’s name and their background information. The rationale should explain the importance of the topic and why it is of interest to participants.The panel members you propose must agree in advance of submission to
participate as panel presenters AND to register for the conference.
Please note that this conference has not established registration waivers.

Ethical Considerations
Authorship: Authors must give credit through references or notes to the original author of any idea or concept presented in the paper or proposal. This includes direct quotations and paraphrases.

Publication or presentation history: If material in your presentation has been published, presented, or accepted for publication or presentation, this must be disclosed in your paper or proposal. And note that depending on the decision of the reviewers, this may render your material ineligible.

Conference attendance: If your panel, paper, or interactive display presentation is accepted for this conference, you have a commitment to register for and attend the conference and perform your assigned role. All chairs and respondents also make this commitment. If extenuating circumstances prevent you from attending, please find a substitute to perform your duties and notify the organisers through the contacts given in this Call for Papers.

Conference Registration fee: US$100
The fee caters for space, refreshments, supplies/materials, and logistics/arrangements.

Hotel/Lodging: Accra (to be determined).
Participants are responsible for their travel costs and arrangements. Travel grants for researchers from soft‐ currency countries are yet to be established.

Paper Distribution
Select papers will be published in a post –conference /follow‐up book project.
For the conference, we will have a CD‐based paper distribution system. All conference registrants, as part of their fees, will have automatic access to all papers from the conference. Papers distributed will be those submitted/accepted during the review process. Non‐attendees should contact the conference organisers
on how to obtain copies of the papers after the conference at a fee. Fees will be used to support some conference needs.

Submission of Papers, Rights, and Agreement
By submitting papers, abstracts, author names, diagrams, and other data (the “submission”) to the conference organisers for inclusion in the 2011 conference, authors understand that they become part of an agreement between the organisers of the conference, CAPCR and GHACMA, and stipulates as follows:
As part of the conference, this submission may be included and/or made available in an online conference website, printed conference documents, or other online or electronic media. After the conference, accepted submissions will be archived and distributed as a participating submission of the PCR conference.

Authors grant certain rights and privileges to CAPCR and GHACMA.
Authors grant to CAPCR and GHACMA, a nonexclusive, royalty‐free, transferable license to reproduce, distribute, create derivative works from, publicly perform, and publicly display the submission in all
languages, in whole or in part, to end users through a direct online or relicense or sale of information products, including but not limited to all formats of magnetic digital, CD‐ROM, tape, online hosts, Internet services, and other electronic, laser, or optical media or other formats now known or hereafter discovered.

CAPCR and GHACMA shall have the right to register copyright to the submission and the accompanying abstract in their name as claimant as part of the conference proceedings or other medium in which such submission is included. An author submitting a paper to this conference retains the right to publish this work in a journal or other publication without limitation by CAPCR or GHACMA or other affiliates.

Co‐sponsors/Partners:
Institute of Peace & Conflict Resolution, Abuja, Nigeria
Peace and Conflict Studies Programme, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Negotiation Conflict Management Group, Nigeria
West African Research Center, Senegal
Search for Common Ground, Liberia
Kofi Annan Institute of Peace & Conflict Transformation, University of Liberia
Peace and Conflict Studies, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone
Centre for Conflict Resolution, University of Cape Town, South Africa
ACCORD, South Africa
Center for Conflict Resolution (CECORE), Uganda
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Kenya
Ethiopia Dispute Resolution Association, Addis Ababa
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐More‐‐‐‐‐

CONTACTS
USA
Prof. Ernest Uwazie
uwazieee@csus.edu
www.csus.edu/org/capcr

GHANA
Mr. Saeed Musah‐Khaleepha
saeed@ghacma.org
www.ghacma.org


Topics
Presentations are invited from all areas of experience and case studies of alternative dispute resolution and peace studies at/by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, educational institutions, Chambers of Commerce and Election Commissions among several others.

Thematic Areas include and not limited to the following:

1. Governance Disputes
Including political disputes, government administration/ civil service disputes and
electoral/election disputes

2. Extractive Industries Disputes
Including mining, oil and gas and quarrying

3. Commercial Disputes
Including employment and labour relations

4. Cultural/Ethnic Disputes
Including chieftaincy issues and succession, community and indigenous
justice systems

5. Construction Disputes

6. Property/Assets Disputes
Including land disputes

7. Family Disputes
Including marriage and divorce, child custody and inheritance disputes

8. Peace Education
Peace education as part of the curriculum of educational institutions and peace
education in institutions and to the larger public

9. Mainstreaming ADR:
Including judicial justice reform, challenges, Lessons and the way forward,
ADR legislations and legislations that give room for ADR

10. National Reconciliation and Transitional Justice

11. Gender

12. Human Rights

13. Youth non‐violence and leadership

14. Disability issues

15. Building a culture of Peace and its sustainability
Including national architectures for peace, the role of peace councils and civil society and non‐governmental organisations

16. Crisis Response and national security concerns.
Including the role of the Red Cross/Crescent organizations, disaster
management and other relief efforts

17. Trends in the usage of ADR Mechanisms

18. Congregational/Religious Disputes
Including intra‐faith and inter‐faith disputes

19. Security interventions and armed conflicts
Including declaration of state of emergencies and imposition of curfews,
peacekeeping operations and Deescalation, Disarmament and Reintegration
(DDR) efforts

The conference will be divided into four sessions comprising ADR, Peace Education, Conflict Interventions and Allied Fields respectively.

Special Workshops
Subject to available resources and personnel
special workshops will be held in the following
areas:
1. ADR in electoral disputes;
2. Kidnapping and hostage negotiation;
3. ADR in Oil and gas cases.