kulrKazan University Law ReviewKazan University Law Review2541-88232686-7885Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет10.30729/2541-8823-2025-10-3-143-156kulr-157Research ArticleARTICLESConsensus, Conscience, and Justice: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas of ADR in South Africa and the BRICS ContextConsensus, Conscience, and Justice: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas of ADR in South Africa and the BRICS ContextMokofeWilliam MangaMokofeWilliam Manga

William Manga Mokofe — Senior Law Lecturer, Advocate

William Manga Mokofe — Senior Law Lecturer, Advocate

Walter Sisulu University; High Court of South AfricaЮжно-Африканская РеспубликаWalter Sisulu University; High Court of South AfricaSouth Africa202530092025103143156Copyright © Mokofe W.M., 20252025Mokofe W.M.Mokofe W.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://kulr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/157

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained prominence globally as a mechanism for resolving conflicts outside traditional court systems. In South Africa, ADR is not only a pragmatic response to judicial inefficiencies but also a constitutional tool for promoting access to justice, equality, and participatory democracy. However, the ethical dimensions of ADR, particularly in contexts marked by socio-economic disparities and cultural pluralism, pose significant challenges. This paper explores these ethical dilemmas within South Africa’s ADR framework and compares them with similar issues in other BRICS nations. It argues that South Africa’s unique blend of transformative constitutionalism and the ethical philosophy of Ubuntu offers a compelling model for ethically grounded ADR. The paper concludes by proposing strategies for strengthening ethical standards and fostering BRICS-wide cooperation in dispute resolution.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained prominence globally as a mechanism for resolving conflicts outside traditional court systems. In South Africa, ADR is not only a pragmatic response to judicial inefficiencies but also a constitutional tool for promoting access to justice, equality, and participatory democracy. However, the ethical dimensions of ADR, particularly in contexts marked by socio-economic disparities and cultural pluralism, pose significant challenges. This paper explores these ethical dilemmas within South Africa’s ADR framework and compares them with similar issues in other BRICS nations. It argues that South Africa’s unique blend of transformative constitutionalism and the ethical philosophy of Ubuntu offers a compelling model for ethically grounded ADR. The paper concludes by proposing strategies for strengthening ethical standards and fostering BRICS-wide cooperation in dispute resolution.

Alternative Dispute ResolutionADRSouth Africaethical dilemmastransformative constitutionalismUbuntuaccess to justiceBRICS.Alternative Dispute ResolutionADRSouth Africaethical dilemmastransformative constitutionalismUbuntuaccess to justiceBRICS.ReferencesBennett T. (2011). Ubuntu: An African Equity // (SSRN working paper / publication record). South African Journal of Philosophy, 30 (3). Pp. 33–45. (In English)Bennett T. (2011). Ubuntu: An African Equity // (SSRN working paper / publication record). South African Journal of Philosophy, 30 (3). Pp. 33–45. (In English)Bhat P. (2017). Community mediation and Lok Adalats in India: Ethical considerations // Journal of Indian Law, 9 (2). Pp. 45–62. (In English)Bhat P. (2017). Community mediation and Lok Adalats in India: Ethical considerations // Journal of Indian Law, 9 (2). Pp. 45–62. (In English)Bingham L. (2020). The global rise of alternative dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press. (In English)Bingham L. (2020). The global rise of alternative dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press. (In English)Boulle L. (2018). Mediation: Skills and Techniques. Durban: LexisNexis. (In English)Boulle L. (2018). Mediation: Skills and Techniques. Durban: LexisNexis. (In English)Chandrasekhar S. (2022). Ethics and Development Cooperation among BRICS States: A Comparative Overview // Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14 (2). Pp. 95–112. (In English)Chandrasekhar S. (2022). Ethics and Development Cooperation among BRICS States: A Comparative Overview // Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14 (2). Pp. 95–112. (In English)Chitere P., Irungu P. (2017). African dispute resolution traditions: Mediation and reconciliation // African Journal of Legal Studies, 12 (1). Pp. 78–102. (In English)Chitere P., Irungu P. (2017). African dispute resolution traditions: Mediation and reconciliation // African Journal of Legal Studies, 12 (1). Pp. 78–102. (In English)De Brabandere E. (2020). Professional Ethics in International Arbitration: Challenges and Reforms // Arbitration International, 36 (1). Pp. 142–159. (In English)De Brabandere E. (2020). Professional Ethics in International Arbitration: Challenges and Reforms // Arbitration International, 36 (1). Pp. 142–159. (In English)De Vos P. (2018). Access to justice and ADR in South Africa // Constitutional Court Review, 6 (1). Pp. 34–57. (In English)De Vos P. (2018). Access to justice and ADR in South Africa // Constitutional Court Review, 6 (1). Pp. 34–57. (In English)Ferraz O. (2019). Labour disputes and ADR in Brazil // Brazilian Journal of Labour Law, 14 (2). Pp. 21–40. (In English)Ferraz O. (2019). Labour disputes and ADR in Brazil // Brazilian Journal of Labour Law, 14 (2). Pp. 21–40. (In English)Fitzpatrick T. (2020). Voluntariness in mediation: Ethical challenges // Mediation Quarterly, 37 (3). Pp. 56–72. (In English)Fitzpatrick T. (2020). Voluntariness in mediation: Ethical challenges // Mediation Quarterly, 37 (3). Pp. 56–72. (In English)Ivanov S. (2018). Arbitration reforms and ethical dilemmas in Russia // Russian Law Journal, 6 (4). Pp. 12–28. (In English)Ivanov S. (2018). Arbitration reforms and ethical dilemmas in Russia // Russian Law Journal, 6 (4). Pp. 12–28. (In English)Keet A., Loots A. (2018). ADR ethics and professional accountability in South Africa // Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 21 (4). Pp. 1–27. (In English)Keet A., Loots A. (2018). ADR ethics and professional accountability in South Africa // Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 21 (4). Pp. 1–27. (In English)Klare K. (1998). Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism // South African Journal on Human Rights, 14 (1). Pp. 146–188. (In English)Klare K. (1998). Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism // South African Journal on Human Rights, 14 (1). Pp. 146–188. (In English)Letseka M. (2012). Ubuntu and moral responsibility in Africa // In: Murove M. W. (ed.). African ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied ethics. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Pp. 25–40. (In English)Letseka M. (2012). Ubuntu and moral responsibility in Africa // In: Murove M. W. (ed.). African ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied ethics. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Pp. 25–40. (In English)Makofane W. (2021). Cultural pluralism and ADR ethics in South Africa // Journal of African Legal Studies, 18 (1). Pp. 87–105. (In English)Makofane W. (2021). Cultural pluralism and ADR ethics in South Africa // Journal of African Legal Studies, 18 (1). Pp. 87–105. (In English)Menkel-Meadow C. (1997). Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyers’ Responsibilities // South Texas Law Review, 38. Pp. 407–454. (In English)Menkel-Meadow C. (1997). Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyers’ Responsibilities // South Texas Law Review, 38. Pp. 407–454. (In English)Menkel-Meadow C. (2019). Mediation: Theory, policy, and practice. Oxford University Press. (In English)Menkel-Meadow C. (2019). Mediation: Theory, policy, and practice. Oxford University Press. (In English)Mlambo T. (2023). Reimagining ADR in the Global South: Towards a Shared Ethical Framework // Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution, 5 (2). Pp. 72–81. (In English)Mlambo T. (2023). Reimagining ADR in the Global South: Towards a Shared Ethical Framework // Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution, 5 (2). Pp. 72–81. (In English)Mokgoro Y. (1998). Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa // Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 1 (1). Pp. 16–32. (In English)Mokgoro Y. (1998). Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa // Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 1 (1). Pp. 16–32. (In English)Stulberg J. (2021). Transparency and Accountability in Mediation Ethics // Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 36 (2). Pp. 319–336. (In English)Stulberg J. (2021). Transparency and Accountability in Mediation Ethics // Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 36 (2). Pp. 319–336. (In English)Wang H. (2020). Ethics and mediation in contemporary China // Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 11 (2). Pp. 33–49. (In English)Wang H. (2020). Ethics and mediation in contemporary China // Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 11 (2). Pp. 33–49. (In English)Wing L. (2020). Mediation and Power: Ensuring Equity and Justice // Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 38 (1). Pp. 61–78. (In English)Wing L. (2020). Mediation and Power: Ensuring Equity and Justice // Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 38 (1). Pp. 61–78. (In English)Winks B. (2019). Cultural Legitimacy and the Ethics of ADR in South Africa // South African Law Journal, 136 (2). Pp. 209–225. (In English)Winks B. (2019). Cultural Legitimacy and the Ethics of ADR in South Africa // South African Law Journal, 136 (2). Pp. 209–225. (In English)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.