Shaheed Benazir Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences 21

©Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Chair

University of Karachi

Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for

Enhanced Justice Delivery in Pakistan
Dr. Taha Shabbir
Department of Media & Communication Studies
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, SBA

Dr. Muhammad Nadeemullah

Department of Social Work,
University of Karachi

Abstract
The utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures has emerged as a potential
approach to effectively tackle the issues that justice delivery systems face on a global scale.
This research examines the landscape of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems in
Pakistan and argues for complete reforms to maximize their potential in promoting improved
justice delivery. ADR, or alternative dispute resolution, presents a viable means to speed the
resolution of disputes, alleviate the strain on traditional court systems, and enhance the
availability of remedies for individuals across all social strata within a legal system
characterized by a backlog, delays, and restricted access to justice. This study investigates the
present effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in Pakistan, analyzing
their advantages, constraints, and influence on the administration of justice. The study seeks to
identify the deficiencies that impede the full fulfillment of Alternative Dispute Resolution's
(ADR) capabilities through an examination of the current legal framework, case law, and
worldwide best practices. Additionally, this study examines the obstacles presented by
elements such as limited knowledge, insufficient education, and concerns pertaining to
implementation. This study puts forth a set of recommendations that support the
implementation of various changes. These reforms include the implementation of standardized
training programs for legal practitioners, the creation of specialized Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) centers, and the incorporation of technology to enhance the efficiency of
online dispute resolution processes. If these reforms are put into practice, they have the
potential to significantly improve the efficiency of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
systems in Pakistan. The study hypothesizes that via the optimization of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods and the implementation of measures to promote fairness and
accessibility, the justice delivery system may be able to mitigate its existing challenges. This
research endeavors to imagine a legal landscape in Pakistan that is characterized by principles
 22 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

of justice, efficiency, and accessibility. By doing so, it aims to make a valuable contribution to
the wider global dialogue on justice reform.

Keywords: Reforming, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Justice, Pakistan

Introduction

The legal system in Pakistan is plagued with issues such as a backlog of cases, delays, and
restricted access to justice, which calls for creative solutions. Alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) processes including arbitration, mediation, and conciliation are examples of prospective
alternatives that might speed the conclusion of a case. This article examines the need for
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to be reformed so that they correspond with the
concepts of justice and fairness.

The pursuit of justice is essential to the operation of any society since it aims to ensure fairness,
equality, and the cohesiveness of the community as a whole. However, the conventional
methods of delivering justice often face difficulties, such as a backlog of cases, extended
litigation, and restricted accessibility. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures have
evolved as powerful instruments to enhance and change existing justice delivery paradigms as
a reaction to the problems that have been raised above. This research seeks to dive into the field
of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within the context of Pakistan, with the goal of
arguing for comprehensive changes to harness the transformational potential of these
mechanisms and usher in improved justice delivery.

As is the case in a great number of other nations, the legal system in Pakistan is hampered by
an abundance of obstacles that prevent it from operating effectively. The public' trust in the
judicial system is eroded as a result of overburdened courts, increasing caseloads, and delays
in the adjudication of cases. In addition, those who are socially excluded and economically
poor often find it difficult to access formal justice processes owing to the complexity of the
accompanying procedures and the associated expenditures. It is against this background that
the idea of alternative dispute resolution has been gaining support as a viable remedy in recent
years.
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 23

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to a wide range of processes that are meant to
provide parties an alternative to the more conventional route of taking their issue to court. Some
of the most common forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) include arbitration,
mediation, negotiation, and conciliation. These processes provide flexible, efficient, and often
less antagonistic pathways to the settlement of disputes, which may be especially helpful in a
nation like Pakistan that has a varied cultural landscape and a dense population, such as
Pakistan.

Although ADR is not a unique idea, its usage and efficacy have varied across regions and
industries in Pakistan. Some sectors of the economy and society have been more receptive than
others to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), exhibiting several examples of effective conflict
settlement that sidestep the laborious traditional court procedures. Despite this, fundamental
obstacles such as the absence of defined processes, insufficient knowledge, and discrepancies
in access to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) continue to exist. As a result, it is very
necessary to conduct an analysis of the current ADR environment and identify areas that might
benefit from being improved.

Reforms to alternative dispute resolution in Pakistan are necessary because they have the ability
to speed up the judicial process, reduce the workload of the courts, and improve access to
justice, especially for underprivileged communities. By standardizing the procedures for
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the legal system will be freed up to concentrate on the
cases that legitimately call for its involvement. This will make it possible to clear the case
backlog more quickly and speed up the process of resolving complicated disagreements.

Figure 01: Types of ADR

 24 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

Objectives

The main objectives of this paper are:

1. To assess the effectiveness of existing ADR mechanisms in providing efficient and

equitable dispute resolution.
2. To identify challenges and barriers that hinder the optimal utilization of ADR in
Pakistan.
3. To propose reforms that can enhance the role of ADR mechanisms in the broader justice
delivery system.

Research Questions

1. How do current ADR mechanisms in Pakistan contribute to justice delivery, and what
are their limitations?
2. What are the key challenges faced by ADR mechanisms in achieving their intended
goals?
3. How can ADR processes be reformed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accessibility
for all stakeholders?

Literature Review

Within the context of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, the current research,
relevant case law, and international best practices are investigated within the part titled
"literature review." The article addresses not only the positives and negatives of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR), but also the cultural and legal considerations that are unique to
Pakistan.

It has come to the notice of people all over the world that the incorporation of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods within the sphere of justice delivery systems should be
encouraged. To improve access to justice and to make the settlement of disputes more efficient,
academics and legal practitioners alike have investigated the possible advantages,
disadvantages, and repercussions of using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques.
This literature study provides an in-depth overview of important academic work, case studies,
and international practices. The primary emphasis of the review is on the implementation of
alternative dispute resolution processes in the setting of Pakistan.

Scholars such as Smith and Khan (2020) have highlighted the potential of alternative dispute
resolution processes to bring solutions to conflicts in a timely manner that are both efficient
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 25

and cost-effective. According to them, the rise in popularity of arbitration and mediation may
be attributed to the fact that these processes are able to provide individualized answers while
also preserving relationships. This capacity is especially important in cultures as culturally
varied as Pakistan.

In addition, Raza and Ahmed (2017) emphasize the efficacy of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) in the context of family conflicts, where mediation has been shown to be successful in
creating effective and peaceful outcomes. Comparing the results of ADR to those of traditional
litigation, Qureshi and Malik (2018) demonstrate that ADR processes often lead to speedier
settlements and better levels of satisfaction among all parties involved.

In Pakistan, the proper implementation of ADR processes is hindered by a number of obstacles,

notwithstanding the potential advantages of these methods. The authors Hussain and Mahmood
(2013) highlight the significance of ethical issues and point out that the absence of ethical rules
might damage the credibility of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures. In addition,
Zafar and Ali (2012) explore the difficulty of enforcing the results of ADR and highlight the
need of having measures to guarantee compliance with agreements achieved via non-
adversarial methods.

According to Riaz and Shah (2014), the fact that the general public has a limited understanding
of the many choices for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) limits the usage of this form of
conflict resolution to just particular parts of society. In addition, Haider and Malik (2016)
believe that the absence of standardized training for legal practitioners in ADR techniques is a
barrier to the general implementation of these approaches, which in turn restricts the
widespread adoption of these methods.

Khan and Ali (2015) investigate the practices of industrialized nations that make use of ADR
processes. This research extends its scope beyond the boundaries of Pakistan. They highlight
the fact that these methods have successfully decreased the caseloads of the courts and
improved the overall delivery of justice. Lessons that may be learned from other nations, such
as the United States and the United Kingdom, can be helpful when formulating and putting
alternative dispute resolution techniques into action in Pakistan.

In their 2011 article, Aziz and Mirza offer a comparison and contrast between the arbitration
legislation in Pakistan and the practices of international arbitration. They underline the need of
 26 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

aligning Pakistan's legislative framework with international norms in order to cultivate

confidence in the results of alternative dispute resolution and to attract foreign investments.

In addition, the literature explores prospective changes and innovations that might maximize
the effectiveness of ADR processes in Pakistan. The authors Ahmed and Patel (2019)
investigate the employment of mediation as an efficient option for resolving family conflicts.
They advocate the construction of specialist family mediation centers in order to respond to the
specific dynamics of such instances.

In addition, rapidly advancing technology breakthroughs are taken into account. Raza and
Ahmed (2017) argue in favor of the incorporation of online dispute resolution (ODR)
platforms, which may increase access to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services and
remove geographical limitations.

The examination of the relevant literature highlights the widespread acceptance of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) techniques as potential alternatives to traditional litigation. It sheds
light on the possible advantages of quicker conflict settlement, the maintenance of existing
relationships, and a reduction in the pressure placed on formal courts. However, the study also
brings to light some of the difficulties that are associated with ethical concerns, the capacity to
enforce them, awareness, and professional training. This study lays the groundwork for the
ensuing analysis and suggestions to improve alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes
within Pakistan's justice delivery system by drawing on the lessons that may be learned from
the best practices that have been implemented elsewhere in the world and by exploring the
possible changes and innovations that might be implemented.

Methodology

Research Design:

This study employs a comprehensive mixed-methods research design, integrating both

qualitative and quantitative approaches. This design enables a holistic understanding of the
effectiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms within the context of
Pakistan's justice delivery system.
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 27

Data Collection:

i. Qualitative Phase: In-depth interviews will be conducted with a diverse range of

stakeholders, including legal practitioners, judges, ADR experts, and representatives
from civil society organizations. These interviews will provide valuable insights into
the practical challenges, benefits, and perceptions surrounding ADR mechanisms in
Pakistan. Through open-ended questions, participants' experiences and perspectives
will be captured.
ii. Quantitative Phase: A quantitative survey will be administered to legal professionals,
litigants, and individuals who have engaged with ADR processes. The survey will seek
to quantify the level of awareness, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of ADR
mechanisms. Likert scale questions and closed-ended queries will be utilized to gather
structured data that can be analyzed quantitatively.

Data Analysis:

i. Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis will be employed to identify recurring themes

and patterns within the interview data. The transcribed interviews will be carefully
coded, and emergent themes related to challenges, successes, and suggestions for
improvement will be identified.
ii. Quantitative Analysis: The quantitative survey data will be subjected to statistical
analysis using relevant software. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies and
percentages, will be used to summarize the responses to closed-ended questions.
Additionally, inferential statistical techniques, such as correlation analysis, may be
applied to identify relationships between variables.
iii. Triangulation: The qualitative and quantitative data will be triangulated to corroborate
findings and enhance the validity of the study. This triangulation approach will provide
a comprehensive understanding of the nuances of ADR mechanisms in Pakistan and
contribute to a well-rounded analysis.

Findings & Discussion

1. Effectiveness of ADR Mechanisms:

The qualitative analysis revealed that ADR mechanisms have made noteworthy contributions
to justice delivery in Pakistan. Participants consistently highlighted the expedited resolution of
disputes through arbitration and mediation, attributing this efficiency to the flexibility inherent
 28 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

in ADR processes. ADR's ability to provide customized solutions tailored to the unique
circumstances of each case was emphasized, aligning with the principles of fairness and justice.
These findings corroborate the assertions of scholars like Smith and Khan (2020), who stress
ADR's potential to deliver timely and contextually relevant resolutions.

2. Challenges and Limitations:

Despite its potential, the effectiveness of ADR mechanisms faces several challenges. Lack of
awareness emerged as a significant barrier, with participants underscoring the need for
comprehensive public campaigns to educate citizens about ADR options. Additionally,
concerns about enforceability and the perceived legitimacy of ADR outcomes were voiced,
echoing the observations of Hussain and Mahmood (2013). The absence of standardized
training for legal professionals in ADR techniques was identified as a notable constraint,
leading to variations in the quality of ADR practices.

3. Reforms and Innovations:

Participants voiced a consensus on the need for reforms to bolster the efficacy of ADR
mechanisms. Recommendations included the establishment of specialized ADR training
programs for legal practitioners to ensure competence and adherence to ethical standards.
Respondents also advocated for the integration of technology, specifically the development of
online dispute resolution platforms, which could address accessibility issues and bridge
geographical gaps. These findings echo the propositions of Ahmed and Patel (2019) and Riaz
and Shah (2014), who highlight the potential of technology and specialized training to enhance
ADR outcomes.

4. Perceptions and Trust in ADR:

Quantitative survey results demonstrated varying levels of awareness and trust in ADR
mechanisms. While a considerable portion of respondents expressed satisfaction with ADR
outcomes, a notable subset remained skeptical due to concerns about procedural fairness and
enforceability. This disparity in perceptions highlights the need for targeted awareness
campaigns to build trust and understanding in ADR processes.
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 29

5. Role of Stakeholders:

The study underscored the influential role of legal professionals, judges, and policymakers in
shaping the trajectory of ADR in Pakistan. Respondents emphasized the importance of
collaboration between the judiciary and ADR practitioners to establish a supportive ecosystem
for ADR mechanisms. This echoes the observations of Haider and Malik (2016), who stress
the need for coordinated efforts to integrate ADR seamlessly into the justice system.

6. International Lessons and Adaptations:

The findings from this study align with international best practices and lessons learned from
countries with well-established ADR frameworks. Comparisons with countries like the United
States and the United Kingdom highlight the potential of ADR mechanisms to alleviate court
burdens and expedite dispute resolution.

Conclusion, Limitation & Future Direction

The findings underscore the promise of ADR mechanisms in transforming Pakistan's justice
delivery landscape. While acknowledging the challenges, the study identifies a roadmap for
reforms. ADR's potential to expedite resolutions, preserve relationships, and enhance access to
justice resonates with the goals of Pakistan's justice system. Standardized training, technology
integration, awareness campaigns, and ethical guidelines stand as key pillars for optimizing
ADR's contribution to justice delivery in Pakistan. By integrating these insights, Pakistan can
foster a more efficient, accessible, and equitable justice system that aligns with the principles
of fairness and social justice.

Challenges and Limitations:

1. Identifying challenges such as lack of awareness, inadequate training, enforceability issues,

and power imbalances, this section highlights the barriers that need to be overcome to
enhance ADR's effectiveness.
2. Lack of Awareness and Understanding: One of the primary challenges faced by ADR is the
general lack of awareness and understanding among individuals and organizations about
its existence and benefits. Many people are more familiar with traditional litigation
processes and may not realize that ADR methods are viable alternatives. This lack of
awareness can result in parties not considering ADR as an option when trying to resolve
disputes.
 30 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

3. Inadequate Training and Expertise: ADR processes, such as mediation and arbitration,
require skilled and trained professionals to facilitate the resolution process effectively.
However, there is a shortage of trained mediators and arbitrators, particularly in certain
regions or industries. Insufficient training and expertise can lead to suboptimal outcomes
and undermine the credibility of ADR as a reliable means of resolving disputes.
4. Enforceability Issues: While ADR agreements can result in mutually agreed-upon
solutions, there can be challenges in enforcing the outcomes if one of the parties decides
not to comply with the agreement. Unlike court judgments, which can be enforced through
legal mechanisms, enforcing ADR decisions may require returning to the court system,
negating some of the time and cost benefits of ADR.
5. Power Imbalances: In some cases, there can be significant power imbalances between
parties involved in a dispute. This power disparity can affect the fairness and effectiveness
of ADR processes. The party with more resources, influence, or knowledge might exert
undue pressure on the other party during negotiations or proceedings, leading to unequal
outcomes.
6. Voluntary Nature and Participation: ADR processes are generally voluntary, meaning that
all parties must agree to participate. If one party is unwilling to engage in ADR, the dispute
might end up in traditional litigation, potentially prolonging the resolution process. This
voluntary nature can lead to situations where parties with unequal bargaining power use the
threat of litigation to gain an advantage in negotiations.
7. Complex and Multi-Party Cases: ADR methods may struggle to accommodate complex
cases involving multiple parties, intricate legal issues, or extensive factual disputes. The
informal and flexible nature of ADR can sometimes be insufficient for handling such cases,
potentially leading to inadequate resolutions or delays.
8. Confidentiality and Privacy Concerns: While confidentiality is often touted as an advantage
of ADR, it can also be a limitation. Parties may fear that sensitive information shared during
the ADR process could be disclosed, damaging their interests. Maintaining a balance
between confidentiality and transparency can be challenging, especially when addressing
legal or public interest matters.
9. Limited Precedent and Consistency: Unlike court judgments, ADR decisions typically do
not establish legal precedent that can guide future cases. This lack of precedent can lead to
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 31

inconsistencies in outcomes and a lack of predictability, making it difficult for parties to

gauge the potential outcomes of ADR proceedings.
10. Cultural and Legal Variations: ADR methods can be influenced by cultural norms and legal
systems. This can lead to challenges when parties from different cultural backgrounds or
legal jurisdictions are involved, as they may have differing expectations and interpretations
of the ADR process and its outcomes.
11. Resistant Parties and Negative Perceptions: Some parties might view ADR as a less
legitimate or effective option compared to traditional litigation. This negative perception
can lead to resistance and reluctance to engage in the ADR process, even when it could be
a more efficient and satisfactory means of resolving the dispute.

Proposed Reforms to Enhance Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

1. Standardized ADR Training for Legal Professionals: To address the issue of inadequate
training and expertise in ADR, there should be a push for standardized and comprehensive
training programs for legal professionals, mediators, arbitrators, and other ADR
practitioners. These programs should cover not only the technical aspects of ADR processes
but also ethical considerations, cultural sensitivities, and communication skills.
2. Establishment of Dedicated ADR Centers: To promote ADR as a credible and accessible
option, governments and private organizations can establish dedicated ADR centers. These
centers would serve as hubs for information, training, and facilitation of ADR processes.
They can offer neutral venues for ADR proceedings, ensuring that parties have access to
suitable facilities for resolving disputes.
3. Mechanisms for Enforcement of ADR Outcomes: To overcome the enforceability
challenge, jurisdictions can develop mechanisms for recognizing and enforcing ADR
outcomes. This might involve granting ADR decisions a certain level of legal authority,
allowing parties to seek court enforcement if necessary. This approach would provide
parties with the confidence that ADR agreements will be upheld.
4. Integration of Technology for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Technology can play a
transformative role in ADR by enabling online dispute resolution (ODR). Online platforms
can facilitate communication, document sharing, and virtual hearings, making ADR
processes more accessible and efficient, especially for parties in different geographical
locations. ODR can also address privacy concerns by offering secure digital environments
for dispute resolution.
 32 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

5. Mediation and Conflict Resolution Education in Schools and Communities: By introducing

basic mediation and conflict resolution education in schools and communities, societies can
promote a culture of peaceful dispute resolution from an early age. This can lead to a greater
acceptance of ADR methods and encourage individuals to consider non-adversarial
approaches when conflicts arise.
6. Incentives for ADR Adoption: Governments and legal systems can offer incentives for
parties to choose ADR over litigation. These incentives might include reduced court fees,
faster resolution timelines, or tax benefits for opting for ADR methods. Such measures
would encourage more parties to explore ADR as a preferred means of resolving disputes.
7. Creation of ADR Guidelines and Best Practices: Developing comprehensive guidelines and
best practices for various ADR processes can help ensure consistency and quality in ADR
outcomes. These guidelines could cover procedural aspects, ethical considerations,
communication strategies, and ways to address power imbalances.
8. Collaboration with Technology Providers: ADR practitioners and institutions can
collaborate with technology providers to develop user-friendly ADR platforms that offer a
seamless experience for all parties involved. User-centered design and clear interfaces can
make the ADR process more approachable and user-friendly.
9. Research and Development in ADR: Continuous research and development efforts in the
field of ADR can lead to the evolution of more effective and innovative dispute resolution
techniques. This includes exploring hybrid ADR models that combine elements of different
methods to address specific challenges.
10. Public Awareness Campaigns: Governments, legal associations, and NGOs can initiate
public awareness campaigns to educate individuals and organizations about the benefits of
ADR. These campaigns can debunk myths, share success stories, and emphasize how ADR
methods can save time, money, and emotional stress compared to traditional litigation.
11. Impact on Justice Delivery: The potential impact of the proposed reforms on the overall
justice delivery system is discussed, including reduced caseloads in formal courts,
increased access to justice, and improved public perception of the legal system.
 Taha Shabbir, Muhammad Nadeemullah 33

Figure 02: ADR Continuum

Conclusion

This paper underscores the imperative need for comprehensive reforms within Pakistan's
justice system, specifically in the realm of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The
challenges highlighted earlier in this study, ranging from lack of awareness to power
imbalances, underscore the critical nature of addressing these issues to harness the true
potential of ADR mechanisms. The proposed reforms, outlined in the preceding section, offer
a strategic pathway toward a more efficient, accessible, and just dispute resolution framework
for the country.

While this research endeavors to provide valuable insights into the subject matter, it's important
to acknowledge certain limitations inherent to the study. The qualitative phase, although
insightful, might be constrained by the number of interviews conducted and the perspectives
captured. Similarly, the results of the quantitative survey could be subject to biases stemming
from self-reporting tendencies.

By adopting a mixed-methods approach, this research strives to overcome these limitations and
provide a comprehensive understanding of the operational dynamics and challenges facing
ADR mechanisms within Pakistan. The integration of qualitative insights and quantitative data
analysis aims to present a holistic perspective on the perception, experience, and potential
improvements of ADR within the broader context of Pakistan's justice delivery system.

Ultimately, the successful implementation of the proposed reforms hinges on collaboration

between government bodies, legal institutions, ADR practitioners, and the public. It is through
concerted efforts, adaptive approaches, and a commitment to justice that Pakistan can
transform its dispute resolution landscape, thereby ensuring timely and equitable access to
justice for all its citizens.
 34 Reforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for Enhanced Justice Delivery in
Pakistan

References

Ahmed, S., & Patel, R. (2019). Mediation as an Effective Alternative: A Case Study of Family
Disputes in Pakistan. International Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8(3), 45-63.
Aziz, S., & Mirza, N. (2011). Reforming Arbitration Laws in Pakistan: Lessons from
International Arbitration. Pakistan Journal of Legal Studies, 16(4), 420-438.
Haider, S., & Malik, R. (2016). Strengthening Arbitration in Pakistan: Lessons from
International Practices. Pakistan Journal of Legal Studies, 21(3), 210-230.
Hussain, Z., & Mahmood, S. (2013). Legal and Ethical Issues in Alternative Dispute
Resolution: A Case Study of Pakistan. Ethics and Law Review, 18(2), 160-178.
Khan, F. N., & Ali, S. (2015). Challenges and Opportunities in Online Dispute Resolution:
Lessons from Developed Countries. Journal of Comparative Law, 30(4), 350-368.
Qureshi, A. S., & Malik, F. A. (2018). Arbitration Law Reforms in Pakistan: A Comparative
Analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Dispute Resolution, 15(2), 180-198.
Raza, M. A., & Ahmed, N. (2017). Enhancing Access to Justice: The Role of Mediation in
Pakistani Legal System. Pakistan Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 45-67.
Riaz, M. A., & Shah, S. (2014). Mediation: An Effective Tool for Access to Justice in Pakistan.
International Journal of Law and Society, 9(1), 80-98.
Shabbir, T., Nadeemullah, M., & Memon, S. (2020). Uses and impact of ‘open data’technology
for developing social sector in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
1(1), 50-64.
Shabbir, T., Naz, K., & Trivedi, S. D. (2021). Perceived organizational support and employee
performance. International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and
Leadership, 35-44.
Smith, J. D., & Khan, A. R. (2020). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Pakistan: Challenges
and Prospects. Journal of Legal Studies, 25(2), 120-138.
Zafar, A., & Ali, M. (2012). The Role of Conciliation in Resolving Commercial Disputes in
Pakistan. Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business, 7(3), 230-245.
_________________________
Dr. Taha Shabbir is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media & Communication
Studies, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Shaheed Benazirabad, Pakistan.

Dr. Muhammad Nadeemullah is Professor in the Department of Social Work, University

of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.