Structural processes and alternative means of conflict resolution as solutions to traditional environmental processes

Abstract

Objective - To present and discuss viable alternatives that can overcome the obstacles inherent in traditional legal proceedings, specifically in environmental disputes.

Methodology - Bibliographic research, which consisted of consulting literature and legal doctrinal texts.

Originality/relevance - In the environmental field, traditional forms of civil proceedings would not be adequate: the characteristics of environmental damage require a different approach.

Results - It was concluded that structural processes are more appropriate for resolving complex environmental disputes, in addition to allowing for flexibility in the procedures adopted to address the problem. Alternative means of dispute resolution in the environmental field, provided for in Article 8 of the Escazú Agreement, consist of mechanisms such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration to resolve disputes.

Theoretical/methodological contributions - The complexity of environmental disputes demands overcoming the obstacles associated with traditional procedural norms. Furthermore, the use of these alternatives to traditional judicial processes will only be effective if they are conditioned on broad participation, particularly from society and from groups directly affected by the environmental problem/object in question.

Social and environmental contributions - Structural environmental processes have the potential to bring about reforms/changes to the status quo, but this potential is explored little by the judiciary. Also, the use of alternative dispute resolution methods—conciliation, mediation, and arbitration—could be a viable means of overcoming obstacles such as the length of traditional processes and the economic and social disparities between the parties involved.