Power and Vulnerability Land Dispute Resolution

Unfolding analysis reveals two types of land disputes prevalent in postwar northern Uganda: cases that involve a legitimate cause of action and those that do not.1 Since mediation and alternative forms of dispute resolution rely on parties’ willingness to negotiate in good faith, cases featuring ‘bad faith’ and land grabbing—where powerful parties intentionally exploit another person’s vulnerability in order to illegally2 claim land—pose a serious challenge for local land dispute mediators. Such mediators must wrestle with whether and how to remain neutral in the face of injustice. While bad faith and land grabbing each have the ability to unravel the ADR process, both are difficult to pinpoint since they are not immediately apparent. In this study, land grabbing is understood as the illegal and opportunistic act of depriving someone of land rights; bad faith describes the dishonest or obstructive way someone approaches the dispute resolution process. The two are used almost interchangeably, since if a person behaves deceptively and undermines the ADR process (acts in bad faith), it is assumed they are trying to illegally deny someone’s land rights (grab land). So far, studies have highlighted the causes, impacts, and reactions to domestic land grabs, but little is known about the on-the-ground efficacy of ADR interventions in these cases. Moreover, with over 17 different actors intervening in land disputes simultaneously 3 in northern Uganda, it is imperative that ADR actors critically evaluate the appropriateness their responses to land grabbing through the eyes of disputants, mediators, and key stakeholders. If ADR is to play its part in ending this epidemic, its interventions must be shrewd and strategic. The purpose of this report is to distill the experiences of victims, offenders, and land dispute interveners to inform current practice and policy advocacy. This investigation—conducted from March to July 2013 in partnership with seven (7) member organizations of the Northern Uganda Land Platform—assumes that better understanding and coordination of ADR approaches will inspire more appropriate responses to the grave nature of these cases.