Source: (2014) NYU Journal of International Law and Politics.46:541-588.

In this Note, I expose the potential drawbacks to considering adjudication as the only option for remedying human rights abuses. Furthermore, I discuss the use of mediations as an alternative or complement to adjudications. I contend that mediations should be used more widely to improve human rights enforcement and protect vulnerable persons from future violations. Mediations can help fill the gaps that currently exist with adjudications as the default enforcement mechanism. For example, people are generally most susceptible to human rights violations in states with a weak rule of law, which in turn correlates to limited access to justice. Mediations can improve access to justice in states that are struggling to enforce international human rights norms. In fact, they may even be preferable under some circumstances due to their greater availability and their ability to promote human rights appreciation in developing nations as well as focus on the needs of both the victim and the perpetrator. I will examine how mediations can be used to address circumstances like the previously described child labor abuses in Mayatha. I argue that mediations should be an acceptable and, in some circumstances, even the preferred method to remedy human rights abuses. I will illuminate the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of using mediations as a method of confronting human rights abuses. However, this Note does not argue that mediations are an acceptable means to resolve all human rights abuses; instead, it contends that stakeholders should examine mediations as a potential tool to provide justice and human rights protections to people around the world. (excerrpt)