ÿWPCi: ôÐ0¤âäÀ‡‚Yxpï70A²GùZN ÚýÙˆê›Y¥\|ÝòøÛ–Ò­·¨ŠSDѧ°Ë´ßa}ÔX;©CcõeÌ$T˜§å_•ìëô@yQIdø-Þo¸yAü'\]Ý  a®ýöŽ-[gݱý ÐzuÓÂTèyÎAGÿµ«|‰f§'šøDzZxR hŽÀößO &§Ûî¡&ì@ɾô¾Ù™é.,ÿ™Ÿ_eÍ›†,ëy“+ ‰»w9{Ößö9Y—¤Ÿ¢ ÝàævÞÍ€l©\•GuXÊ _|4ª|’§@ǯ|<Ðá81o9ìQ?0Äž›Ÿ9ª]¡vÊ#þ it¹gÇEYóÃ6í^ÎR[]¿;Æ ŽŒiÀ/¡²ó¤ýÓÀFøAõŽJÚ ÿ,7ª)!J:žP[z€ºÎ`•¬ÛÐÛ0õ“rIUA#äönyn>‚ðÑâWŸÈ# „’ uÁ™ FÂF”›üè- $mËáJ{"‹µnÁÁkì_´­~¶³çî³sìdùXÚà6µ»®Œß“U:µ›HçÇü~§xOÅ;fé:iåŒðMäÎÿÛ$¿½6< q„]‰y*d˜|¬Z+Ž"`N%Øï)búÕ ­+kµ,;hZUwBì %.¦4 0ÀÚ 0Àš 0 Z 0Àú 0Àº 0tz 0 ¨î 0 è– 0è~ 0\f 0  0rR 0ªÄ 0–n 0À Ä 0Í 0INy—½ Í$àá$ÚÁ'S›* 1uî-Ïc. 1u21Œ§1 0Ë35þ5n6 0 f8#!w8N˜9 1uš9^ :w:4:3: m5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5: BL:ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Ó  %RESTORATIVE AND RESPONSIVE JUSTICE FOR THE WHOLE OF LAW 2 vab0aas .   H<1 ÿÿ4heading 1heading 1Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔòòóóÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔÓ  ÓH<1 ÿÿ4heading 2heading 2Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ Ôò òó óÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔÓ  ÓH¬¡ ÿÿ4heading 3heading 3Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€¼¼¼ÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ Ôò òó óÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ'  ÔÓ  ÓH<1 ÿÿ4heading 4heading 4Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔòòóóÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔÓ  ÓH<1 ÿÿ4heading 5heading 5Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔòòóóÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔÓ  Óh††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔH0% ÿÿ4Body TextBody TextÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ Ôò òó óÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Ó<A` ÿÿ.headerheaderÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓÓ  Ó<A` ÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓÓ  ÓP††ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔV’ ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÓ  Ó`‰‰ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔP-" ÿÿ8Body Text 2Body Text 2Ó  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Ó<-" ÿÿ$1Body Text 2Ó  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Ó`0% ÿÿ:Body Text InBody Text Indent 2Ó  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ OZ ÔòòóóÔ US ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Ó ÿÝ ƒn 'ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒܰÒÒܰÒÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!°œXÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  Ýà@ììììàˆà€˜!˜!˜!ü!àÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÝ‚ ÿÿÿôƒÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ݈Ð N ÐÝ‚ ÿÿÿ…ƒÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ °œXÜÜü!ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?Ó(Y2n $§§Ý ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  Ý(!ÿÿ$òòò òÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó ó oÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒܰÒÒܰÒÝ‚ ÿÿÿÿÿƒ#ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõhXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõ,ô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜X,ô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óó…óóóó óÝ‚ÿpƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÝ  Ý€This€research€was€supported€by€an€Australian€Research€Council€Discovery€Grant€on€Meta„RegulationÐ N Ðwith€Nicola€Ô_ÔLaceyÔ_Ô,€Christine€Parker€and€Colin€Scott.€ ³Ý ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿƒ#ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óó…óóóÝ‚ÿNƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜Xõô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  Ý€The€most€dramatic€growth€in€a€single€locus€of€litigation€has€been€the€use€by€business€litigants€ofÐ N Ðthe€1974€òòTrade€Practices€Actóó,€Australiaððs€competition€and€consumer€protection€law.€Ð Hú ÐGlobally,€growth€in€the€quantity€of€the€latter€kind€of€law€has€also€been€from€a€zero€base€in€mostÏcountries,€substantial€and€even€more€recent€than€in€Australia.€Most€of€the€worldððs€nations€nowÏhave€competition€laws€and€competition€enforcement€agencies.€Most€have€acquired€them€sinceÏ1990€(CUTS,€2003;€Jordana€and€Levi„Faur,€2003).€DDE_LINK1 ÖÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜X,ô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òÚ  Ú3Ú  Úó…óó…óóóÝ‚ÿFƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÝ  Ý€I€am€thankful€to€Angus€Corbett€via€Christine€Parker€for€this€characterization.€ ÐÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓB.ÜÜ´4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œXBÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜X,ô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òÚ  Ú4Ú  Úó…óó…óóóÝ‚ÿIƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÝ  Ý€Personal€communication€with€US€plaintiff€lawyer€L.€Virginia€McCorkle.€ IÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜X,ô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òÚ  Ú5Ú  Úó…óó…óóóÝ‚ÿFƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÝ  Ý€In€the€first€instance,€justice€is€not€something€to€provide;€it€is€something€to€do.€€But€once€injustice€has€beenÐ N Ðdone€or€alleged,€access€to€justice€is€something€to€provide€according€to€Parker.€$ÿÿ35=EMU]em2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ÅÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓB.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œXBÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ€ô[MõhXå˜ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò…òÚ  Ú6Ú  Úó…óóóÝ‚ÿ·ƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜Xõô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  Ý€Ô€ô[MõXXå˜ÔEven€for€vexatious€grievances,€it€is€generally€best€to€sort€them€out€so€the€vexatiousness€does€not€lead€toÐ N Ðother€injustices.Ô€Xå˜Xõô[MÔ€€$ÿÿ35=EMU]em3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) ‚Ý ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝòòÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜X,ô[MÔÔ€Xå˜XhXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò…òÝ  ÝÔ€ô[MõhXå˜Ôò…òÚ  Ú7Ú  Úó…óó…óóóÝ‚ÿFƒ#ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÝ  Ý€I€should€declare€that€Reputex€is€a€private€company€and€I€am€a€member€of€the€Reputex€Ratings€CommitteeÐ N Ðthat€approves€the€final€ratings€based€on€the€work€of€the€research€groups.€€My€work€for€the€company€is€òòproÐ É Ðbonoóó,€however.€(Š2g}$¤¤Ý ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÒܰÒÒܰÒòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x «ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXOô\  PŽUXPô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼]ô\  PŽU¼P(>í$¡¡Ô€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜Ô˜03#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Tc/ƹP/Æ*îœCorel+ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dÝ ƒ#í!ÝÔ€Xå˜XõôÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑN°ÑÒܰÒÒܰÒÖ€ÿÿÖÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò òÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓMETA€REGULATION€FOR€ACCESS€TO€JUSTICEÝ‚ ÿ¨ƒ#Ýó óÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÐ   ÐÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÑÈÑÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ôóóò òó óÐ w ÐÝ‚ ÿÿÿÿÿƒ#ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝPresentation€to€General€Aspects€of€Law€(GALA)€Seminar€Series,€University€of€California,ÏBerkeley,€Thurs€13€November,€2003.ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿ&ƒ#ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌÓ  ÓòòJohn€Ô_ÔBraithwaiteÔ_ÔÐ Ç ½  ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòˆòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔAustralian€National€UniversityÔ ÔÌÝ‚ÿÿÿ¤ƒ#ÝóˆóÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î`´ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝóóÌÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÓB.ÜÜV4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œXBÓà0 V àIt€is€contended€that€access€to€justice€cannot€be€secured€simply€by€more€progressiveÐ £™  Ðlaw€ð!ð€more€legal€aid,€more€public€interest€law.€Max€Weber€provides€the€key€to€whyÏas€the€quantity€of€law€grows,€law€as€an€institution€becomes€more€useful€to€thoseÏwith€institutional€power€and€less€accessible€to€the€poor.€In€the€conditions€of€lateÏmodernity,€meta„regulatory€strategies€ð!ð€regulation€of€regulation,€regulation€of€law,Ïregulation€of€access€to€justice€initiatives€ð!ð€are€the€more€productive€paths€to€accessÏto€justice.€€The€possibilities€for€meta„regulation€strategies€that€move€us€towardÏrestorative€and€responsive€justice€for€the€whole€of€law€are€considered.€€The€keyÏpolicy€idea€that€renders€such€a€strategy€for€retrieving€access€to€justice€feasible€in€aÏcomplex€society€is€Christine€Parkerððs€strategy€of€requiring€large€organizations€toÏprepare€access€to€justice€plans.€€The€centrality€of€this€idea€resides€in€the€empiricalÏclaim€that,€in€the€conditions€of€late€modernity,€the€more€serious€the€injustice€theÏmore€likely€it€is€that€a€large€organization€will€somewhere€be€a€stakeholder€in€it.€€It€isÏargued€that€large€organizations€are€already€on€a€trajectory€of€incipient€versions€ofÏaccess€to€justice€plans€and€Ô_ÔNGOsÔ_Ô€are€already€on€a€trajectory€of€demanding€them.ÏNudging€these€developments€forward€is€therefore€a€social€justice€agenda€worthy€ofÏour€consideration.€€€€€€€Ð Vü!Vü! ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿ¹ƒ#ÝóóÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜV4‹XEÓÐ Š*€%4 ÐÔ_ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔThe€Widening€€Impossibility€of€Access€to€JusticeÔ 5 ÔóóÐ   ÐÝ‚ÿe ƒ#ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î u ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€Xå˜Xõô[MÔDeveloped€democracies€have€seen€enormous€recent€growth€in€the€quantity€of€law.€For€my€ownÐ w Ðcountry,€for€example,€the€Australian€Attorney„Generalððs€Department€estimated€there€wereÏ1800€Commonwealth€Acts€in€force€in€2002;€170€of€these€were€promulgated€in€2001,148€inÏ2002.€Not€only€has€the€rate€of€growth€in€the€number€of€Acts€increased€dramatically€in€recentÏdecades,€the€number€of€rules€per€Act,€the€complexity€and€length€of€Acts€is€also€increasing.€ForÏthe€1990s,€the€number€of€pages€of€law€per€Act€was€twice€the€number€for€the€1980s€and€threeÏtimes€the€quantity€for€the€1970s€(Argy,€2003).€As€in€many€nations,€tax€law€is€probably€the€mostÏextreme€example,€which€has€grown€27„fold€in€pages€of€law€since€1970€(Inglis,€2003).€€It€isÏpost„1970s€rules€in€commercial€areas€such€as€tax€and€corporations€law€that€account€for€theÏlargest€part€of€the€growth€in€litigation.Ý‚ÿ› ƒ#ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÐ °¦ Ðâ âÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óóÐ ' ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿƒ#ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& ^ Ôâ âÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝóóÌÔ  ÔThe€regulatory€state€literature€also€documents€the€rise€in€the€number€of€state€agencies€thatÏenforce€laws€and€in€the€enforcement€personnel€available€to€them€(Ayres€and€Braithwaite,€1992:ÏChapter€1;€Jordana€and€Levi„Faur,€2003,€Moran,€2003,€Parker€et€al,€2004).€€The€existence€ofÏmore€law€and€more€public€enforcement€of€it€is€one€factor€driving€more€private€enforcement€ofÏlaw.€€This€has€not€all€been€growth€in€litigation,€or€even€mainly€growth€in€litigation;€legal€systemsÏhave€also€coped€with€the€growth€of€both€law€and€the€capability€to€contest€law€with€massiveÏexpansion€of€Alternative€Dispute€Resolution€(ADR)€in€the€twentieth€century.€€ADR€has€been€anÏimportant€part€of€the€growing€truth€of€Galanterððs,€(1981)€insight€that€justice€occurs€in€manyÏrooms.€€It€is€less€accurate€to€say€that€we€have€witnessed€the€rise€of€the€regulatory€state€thatÏgoverns€more€through€steering€than€rowing€(Osborne€and€Gaebler,€1992)€than€it€is€to€say€weÏhave€seen€the€growth€of€a€regulatory€society.€€Business€firms€also€do€less€of€their€own€rowing;Ïâ âthey€get€more€things€done€by€contracting€out€and€regulating€the€performance€of€contractors.€ÏProfessions,€non„governmental€organizations€(NGOs),€intergovernmental€organizations,€industryÏassociations€and€a€plethora€of€hybrid€business„NGO€organizations€(like€the€Forest€StewardshipÏCouncil€collaboration€between€retailers€and€environmental€NGOs€to€certify€and€eco„labelÏwood€products)€also€do€a€lot€of€regulating.€€Ô cÔÌÝ‚ÿõƒ#ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'^ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌIn€a€world€where€there€is€continuous€growth€in€the€quantity€of€law€and€private€regulation€andÏtheir€private€and€public€enforcement,€access€to€justice€retreats€further€beyond€the€reach€of€thoseÏwith€limited€resources.€€Of€course€where€access€to€justice€matters€is€with€those€with€insufficientÏresources€to€fight€their€own€legal€battles.€Max€Weber€(1954)€revealed€to€us€the€most€profoundÏreason€why€as€the€formality€and€complexity€of€law€grows,€access€to€justice€becomes€moreÏimpossible€for€little€people€(see€Sutton€and€Wild,€1978).€€The€more€formal€and€complex€the€lawÏbecomes,€the€more€it€favours€formally€rational€organizations€such€as€business€corporations€thatÏhave€evolved€to€govern€complexity.€€Increasingly,€little€people€and€little€businesses€cannot€copeÏwith€things€like€doing€their€own€tax€returns;€they€contract€the€services€of€a€tax€preparer€expert€inÏmanaging€this€particular€kind€of€complexity.€€But€in€most€spheres€of€life,€small€players€cannotÐ —,'6 Ðafford€to€contract€the€services€of€an€organization€that€is€expert€in€managing€formal€legalÏcomplexity€that€ordinary€people€cannot€comprehend.€Mostly€they€lump€it.€€So€a€regulatoryÏsociety€is€one€that€structurally€induces€expanding€spheres€of€injustice€as€a€result€of€the€fact€thatÏmore€of€the€important€things€that€get€done€in€such€societies€are€done€through€the€private€andÏpublic€enforcement€of€private€and€public€rules€and€standards.€€A€paradox€of€regulatory€societyÏis€that€even€specific€laws€designed€to€fix€injustice€contribute€to€this€wider€structural€fact€ofÏinjustice.€€We€see€it€with€tax€law:€€new€rules€designed€to€plug€a€loophole€that€is€available€to€theÏrich€but€not€the€poor€are€later€used€to€open€up€newly€conceived€loopholes€for€the€richÏ(Braithwaite,€forthcoming).€€Moreover,€by€increasing€the€quantity€of€law,€the€new€rules€mayÏmake€the€law€more€incomprehensible€to€ordinary€folk€and€more€exploitable€by€formally€rational€Ïmanagers€of€complexity.€ÌÌA€new€paradigm€seems€to€be€required.€€More€of€the€same€ð!ð€writing€more€laws€to€favour€theÏpoor,€more€legal€aid€from€experts€in€managing€legal€complexity€ð!ð€cannot€solve€the€dilemmas€ofÏa€regulatory€society.€€Social€justice€advocates€might€do€better€to€pull€their€fingers€out€of€a€dykeÏriddled€with€cracks€that€constantly€open€under€its€own€growing€weight.€€Better€to€pull€backÏfrom€the€dyke€to€build€some€new€protective€structures€further€inland.€€These€will€not€beÏstructures€that€give€up€on€a€dyke€that€might€collapse€under€its€own€weight€any€day;€they€will€beÏstructures€that€regulate€dyke€maintenance.€€The€access€to€justice€project€that€counts€most,€thisÏessay€argues,€is€a€meta„regulatory€project€(Grabosky,€1995;€Gunningham€and€Grabosky,Ï1998;€Parker,€2002;€Morgan,€2002).€It€is€about€the€regulation€of€extant€regulatory€structures.ÌÌThe€meta„regulatory€project€I€consider€is€restorative€and€responsive€justice€for€the€whole€ofÏlaw.€€This€essay€will€summarize€the€entire€argument€of€my€book€òòRestorative€Justice€andÐ »&±!. ÐResponsive€Regulationóó€in€its€application€to€all€areas€of€law€and€it€will€reconceptualize€€it€as€aÐ 2((#0 Ðmeta„regulatory€€strategy€for€access€to€justice.€€€While€it€goes€beyond€that€work,€apologies€for€Ïrepetition€are€in€order€for€those€who€have€read€the€book.€€It€will€be€argued€that€a€restorativeÏand€responsive€strategy€for€the€whole€of€law€is€more€than€a€utopian€project€to€build€a€betterÐ —,'6 Ðdyke€than€the€one€that€public€interest€lawyers€seek€to€plug.€€There€is€a€theory€of€transition€toÏrestorative€and€responsive€justice.€€In€the€process€of€working€to€build€the€alternative€structures,Ïthe€meta„regulation€of€the€injustices€of€the€existing€structures€is€got€underway.€Parker€et€al.Ï(2004)€have€argued€that€faced€with€the€realities€of€the€regulatory€state€and€the€regulatoryÏsociety,€meta„regulation€is€a€strategy€that€actors€concerned€to€shape€the€world€naturally€turn€to.€€ÌÌI€wish€I€could€go€further€and€conclude€that€there€is€some€sort€of€sociological€imperative€for€anÏevolution€toward€responsive€law,€as€Nonet€and€Selznick€(1978)€have€done.€€But€I€am€notÏpersuaded€that€it€is€descriptively€accurate€to€see€an€evolution€from€coercive€to€autonomous€toÏresponsive€law;€nor€am€I€persuaded€that€a€plausible€mechanism€exists€to€drive€forward€such€anÏevolution.€€Mine€is€a€more€mundane€claim€that€while€access€to€justice€through€more€law€of€theÏright€kind€is€sociologically€impossible,€access€to€justice€through€responsive€meta„regulationÏmight€at€least€be€sociologically€and€economically€feasible.€€Whether€restorative€and€responsiveÏjustice€happens€or€not€is€about€how€effectively€reform€movements€struggle€for€it.€ÌÌWhile€my€theoretical€ambitions€are€not€as€great€as€Philip€Selznickððs,€the€debt€to€his€biggerÏambition€is€profound,€especially€on€the€question€of€what€responsiveness€might€mean,€a€matterÏon€which€Selznickððs€1992€book€òòThe€Moral€Commonwealth:€Social€Theory€and€the€PromiseÐ ñç" Ðof€Communityóó,€has€a€more€sophisticated€account€than€Ayres€and€Braithwaiteððs€(1992)Ð h^$ ÐòòResponsive€Regulationóó.€€€For€Selznick€(1992:336),€the€challenge€of€responsiveness€is€theÐ ß Õ& Ðchallenge€ð ðto€maintain€institutional€integrity€while€taking€into€account€new€problems,€new€forcesÏin€the€environment,€new€demands€and€expectationsðð.€€Integrity€requires€authenticÏcommunication€that€connects€reason€to€emotion,€not€political€or€commercial€spin€thatÏdissociates€emotional€appeal€from€reason.€€Reason€connected€to€emotion€through€practicalÏexperience€forges€integrity€as€holistic€purposiveness€that€is€only€enabled€by€connecting€theÏprivate€to€the€public€sphere.€€It€is€in€this€part€of€Selznickððs€responsiveness€story€that€I€find€theÏappeal€of€privileging€restorative€justice€at€the€foundations€of€responsive€regulation.€€€AnÏopportunity€for€the€justice€of€the€people€to€bubble€up€into€the€justice€of€the€law€isÐ —,'6 Ðinstitutionalised€through€direct€emotional€engagement€of€stakeholders€with€particular€instances€ofÏinjustice.€This€fits€with€Selznickððs€(1992:€465,€465)€notion€that€ð ðresponsiveness€begins€withÏòòoutreachóó€and€òòempowermentóóð8ðThe€vitality€of€a€social€order€comes€from€below,€that€is,€fromÐ øî Ðthe€necessities€of€cooperation€in€everyday€life.ðð€€Responsiveness€means€having€respect€for€theÏintegrity€of€practices€and€the€autonomy€of€groups;€response€to€ð ðthe€complex€texture€of€socialÏlifeðð€(Selznick,€1992:€470).€€The€project€of€both€Tom€Paine€(Selznick,€1992:€505)€in€the€òòRightsÐ ] S  Ðof€Man€óóand€James€Madison€is€that€empowered€civic€virtue€is€even€more€important€thanÐ Ô Ê  Ðconstitutional€checks€and€balances:€ð ðpower€should€check€power,€not€only€in€government€but€inÏsociety€as€a€wholeðð€(Selznick,€1992:€535).€€€So,€for€example,€business€custom€shapesÏresponsive€business€regulatory€law€and€state€regulators€check€abuse€of€power€in€business€self„¼regulatory€arrangements,€and€both€should€have€their€power€checked€by€the€vigilant€oversight€ofÏNGOs€and€social€movements.€€€Ì€€ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔMarrying€Restorative€Justice€and€Responsive€RegulationÔ ³6ÔóóÐ   ÐÝ‚ÿS6t€ofÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'îc6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝRestorative€justice€is€a€process€where€all€the€stakeholders€in€an€injustice€have€an€opportunity€toÏdiscuss€the€consequences€of€the€injustice€and€what€might€be€done€to€repair€the€harm.€It€is€aÏtradition€that€has€mainly€developed€in€criminal€law€and€transitional€justice,€as€with€the€SouthÏAfrican€Truth€and€Reconciliation€Commission.€€Responsive€regulation€(Ayres€and€Braithwaite,Ï1992)€is€mainly€discussed€as€a€business€regulatory€tradition.€€In€the€final€chapter€of€òòRestorativeÐ h^$ ÐJustice€and€Responsive€Regulationóó€(Braithwaite,€2002),€I€try€to€argue€for€a€marriage€of€theÐ ß Õ& Ðtwo€traditions€as€a€whole€of€law€approach.€€ÌÌA€core€idea€of€restorative€justice€is€that€because€injustice€hurts,€justice€should€heal.€€Healing,€itÏcontends,€is€most€likely€when€there€is€undominated€deliberation€among€stakeholders€about€theÏconsequences€of€the€injustice€and€what€should€be€done€to€right€the€wrong.€€The€core€idea€ofÏresponsive€regulation€is€that€regulation€(whether€by€governments€or€other€actors€who€regulate)Ïshould€be€responsive€to€the€motivational€postures€of€the€regulated€(V.€Braithwaite,€1995),€toÏtheir€customs,€their€actual€conduct€and€to€structural€facts€about€regulated€markets.€€LikeÐ —,'6 Ðrestorative€justice,€responsive€regulation€makes€the€explanatory€claim€that€legally€pluralistÏdeliberative€institutions€that€engage€multiple€stakeholders€are€most€likely€to€secure€the€regulatoryÏpurposes€of€such€institutions.€€Like€restorative€justice,€responsive€regulation€values€flexibility,Ïcitizen€participation€in€crafting€contextually€attuned€solutions€to€problems€and€parsimony€inÏrecourse€to€coercion.€€€Yet€deterrence€and€incapacitation€€have€vital€roles€in€responsiveÏregulation.€€It€advances€the€paradox€that€by€signalling€a€willingness€to€escalate€to€the€levels€ofÏdeterrence€or€incapacitation€needed€to€secure€a€just€outcome,€we€actually€reduce€theÏpunitiveness€of€regulation.€€By€signalling€(without€making€threats)€a€resolve€to€escalate€up€anÏenforcement€pyramid€until€a€just€outcome€is€secured,€we€can€actually€drive€most€of€theÏregulatory€action€down€to€the€base€of€the€enforcement€pyramid.€€In€the€integration€betweenÏrestorative€justice€and€responsive€regulation€in€Figure€1,€this€regulatory€action€at€the€base€of€theÏpyramid€is€restorative€justice.€€€In€the€worst€case,€we€do€need€to€incapacitate€criminals€byÏcapturing€and€incarcerating€them,€armies€by€capturing€and€disarming€them,€criminal€corporationsÏby€revoking€their€licences€to€operate€(or€replacing€their€directors€and€top€management).€ÏSignalling€the€inexorability€of€this€resolve€actually€empowers€more€deliberative€forms€ofÏrestorative€and€deterrent€justice.€€€The€pyramid€connotes€a€presumption€that€it€will€mostly€beÏfairer,€cheaper€and€more€effective€to€try€restorative€justice€before€deterrence.€€€But€there€will€beÏexceptions€where€this€presumption€is€rebutted€after€considering€restorative€justice€first€and€thenÏdeciding€to€escalate€immediately€to€deterrence€or€incapacitation.€ÌÌÌÌÔ € ÔÌÌÌÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓFigure€1:€€Toward€an€Integration€of€Restorative€and€Responsive€JusticeÌÓ  ÓÔ'î©)mCÔÌThe€explanatory€theory€of€the€pyramid€that€accounts€for€the€parsimonious€resort€to€punishmentÐ —,'6 Ðshould€be€complemented€by€a€normative€theory€of€justice.€€In€my€writing€on€both€restorativeÏjustice€and€responsive€regulation,€that€normative€defence€of€parsimonious€punishment€with€firmÏupper€limits€on€punishments€is€a€civic€republican€theory€(Braithwaite€and€Pettit,€1990).€ÏAccording€to€these€republican€lights,€both€restorative€justice€and€responsive€regulatoryÏinstitutions€should€be€crafted€to€maximize€freedom€as€non„domination.€€Values€like€forgiveness,Ïthat€are€common€ground€between€the€restorative€and€responsive€tradtions,€are€justified€in€termsÏof€maximizing€freedom€as€non„domination€€€Fundamentals€of€procedural€justice€are€also€justifiedÏin€terms€of€maximizing€freedom€as€non„domination€(Pettit,€1997).€€Again€the€normative„¼explanatory€theoretical€package€is€that€observance€of€procedural€justice€constraints€is€not€onlyÏnormatively€required,€it€increases€the€effectiveness€of€restorative€and€responsive€justice€inÏachieving€its€purposes€(see€Tyler,€1990;€Tyler€and€Dawes,€1993;€Tyler€and€Blader,€2000;€TylerÏand€Huo,€2001).€€Wars€fought€in€compliance€with€the€Geneva€convention€are€more€likely€toÏsecure€a€just€peace;€criminal€laws€enforced€without€racial€discrimination€are€more€likely€toÏprevent€crime;€environmental€tort€litigation€that€treats€corporate€polluters€with€respect€ratherÏthan€humiliation€is€more€likely€to€restore€the€environment.€€In€this€essay€I€do€not€seek€to€defendÏany€of€these€claims.€€I€simply€point€out€that€they€follow€from€the€theory€of€restorative€andÏresponsive€justice,€that€they€are€testable€empirical€claims€and€they€show€the€theory€is€fertile€inÏmaking€a€wide€sweep€of€empirical€predictions€(some€would€say€too€fertile!).ÌÌNor€do€I€make€the€empirical€case€that€developed€western€legal€systems€are€injustice€systemsÏthat€require€us€to€take€access€to€justice€seriously€as€an€issue.€€I€assume€some€readers€mightÏaccept€that€when€legal€rights€are€created,€these€are€systematically€and€increasingly€used€by€largeÏcorporations€€to€avoid€basic€obligations€like€the€payment€of€tax€(Braithwaite,€forthcoming),Ïwhile€€poor€and€middle€class€people€almost€never€have€the€resources€to€enforce€such€rights€inÏthe€courts.€€Nor€do€I€defend€the€premise€that€while€it€is€where€law€is€most€coercive€that€weÏinvest€most€in€legal€aid€for€the€poor€ð!ð€the€criminal€injustice€system€ð!ð€it€is€here€we€find€that€multi„¼million€dollar€€corporate€tax€€offenders,€insider€traders,€price€fixers€or€environmental€criminals€Ïalmost€never€go€to€prison,€while€most€of€those€who€do€end€up€prison€are€poor,€not€employed€atÐ —,'6 Ðthe€time€of€their€arrest,€and€most€of€the€women€in€prison€have€a€history€of€physical€and/or€sexualÏabuse€(Braithwaite€and€Pettit,€1990:€Chapter€9).€€€€€€€ÌÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔThe€Whole€of€Law€HypothesisÔ [OÔóóÐ o e ÐÝ‚ÿûNe€inÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'îo OÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝIs€there€any€plausibility€to€Braithwaiteððs€(2002)€claim€that€restorative€and€responsive€justice€isÏrelevant€across€international€treaties,€tax,€trusts€and€tort?€€€The€general€claim€made€about€law€isÏthat€when€people€go€to€law,€they€are€likely€to€feel€some€sense€of€injustice.€This€is€becauseÏdefining€what€is€just€is€intrinsic€to€the€social€meaning€of€law€as€an€institution.€€Moreover,€if€theÏdispute€gets€as€far€as€litigation,€the€litigation€process€is€likely€to€further€sharpen€this€sense€ofÏinjustice.€€Why?€€Because€lawyers€are€trained€to€sharpen€the€story€of€injustice€in€their€clientððsÏclaim€and€to€imbue€their€client€with€that€sharpened€story€should€they€end€up€in€the€witness€box.€ÏBecause€judges€and€juries€like€to€believe€that€law€is€about€justice,€this€sharpening€helps€winÏtrials.€€There€is€unfortunate€fallout,€however,€when€two€parties€sharpen€their€competing€storiesÏof€injustice€to€stories€designed€to€lead€to€exactly€opposite€conclusions€in€court.€€€TheÏjuxtaposition€of€the€claims€that€ð ðX€is€unjustðð€and€ð ðnot„X€is€unjustðð,€the€very€talking€past€eachÏother€on€what€are€the€kinds€of€injustices€most€relevant€to€the€legal€decision,€engendersÏresentment€between€litigants.€€The€structured€legal€failure€to€acknowledge€the€injustices€sufferedÏby€the€other€causes€this€resentment€to€take€the€form€of€anger€that€the€other€side€cannot€see€aÏwhole€range€of€injustices€that€lurk€in€the€relationship€between€the€parties.€€€We€see€this€routinelyÏwith€divorcees€who€begin€the€dissolution€of€their€marriage€both€resolved€to€be€fair.€€ResolveÏwilts€when€the€tabling€of€the€first€affidavit€triggers,€through€its€narrowing€of€the€account€of€theÏinjustice€in€dispute,€a€whole€host€of€resentments€about€the€marriage.€€ÌÌMost€of€these€other€injustices€are€legally€irrelevant;€the€lawyers€keep€the€lid€on€them€during€theÏtrial.€€This€strategic€suppression€of€anger€often€makes€anger€worse.€€If€we€think€of€a€relationshipÏbetween€parties€as€a€bottle€with€a€mix€of€respectful€and€resentful€emotions€in€it,€litigation€pumpsÏsome€new€resentments€into€the€bottle€and€puts€a€lid€both€on€articulation€of€oneððs€ownÏresentments€and€acknowledgement€of€the€justice€claims€in€the€resentments€of€the€other.€Ð —,'6 ÐRestorative€justice,€in€contrast,€is€a€theory€about€how€to€open€up€the€bottle€so€that€the€reservoirÏof€respect€within€it€is€enticed€to€find€expression,€acknowledgement€of€the€injustices€of€the€otherÏis€encouraged€to€find€expression€and€acknowledgement€of€oneððs€own€hurts€is€enticed€toÏarticulation€in€a€way€that€creates€an€opening€for€the€other€to€respond€to€the€hurt€with€a€gestureÏof€healing.€€ÌÌEven€before€cases€go€to€law,€it€is€argued€in€òòRestorative€Justice€and€Responsive€RegulationóóÐ Ô Ê  Ðthat€ð ðour€deepest€disputes€have€disturbing€relational€meanings€to€litigants€and€are€markers€ofÏidentityðð€(p€244).€€€This€may€seem€an€implausible€claim€in€an€ostensibly€cold€and€calculativeÏdispute,€for€example€with€a€revenue€authority€over€tax€law.€€On€the€contrary,€the€empiricalÏevidence€shows€that€compliance€with€tax€laws€is€greatly€affected€by€perceptions€of€beingÏtreated€with€respect€and€procedural€fairness€by€officers€of€the€tax€authority,€believing€that€theÏgovernment€is€distributively€fair€in€the€way€it€defines€tax€laws,€and€having€an€identity€as€anÏð ðAustralianðð€citizen€who€thus€owes€a€fair€share€of€tax€to€the€Australian€community€(Wenzel,Ï2002,€2003,€in€press).€ÌÌPart€of€the€restorative€justice€theoretical€perspective€is€that€disputes€will€rarely€or€never€beÏlacking€in€important€implications€for€human€relationships€and€will€often€have€their€source€inÏproblems€with€human€relationships.€€There€is€an€essentialist€claim€here€that€human€beings€areÏrelational€animals.€€It€is€therefore€hard€to€understand€or€resolve€their€disputes€if€relationships€areÏexcluded€as€legally€irrelevant.€€A€second€essentialist€assumption€is€that€human€beings€areÏstorytelling€animals.€€So€if€disputants€are€prevented€from€telling€their€own€story€in€their€own€wayÏabout€the€dispute,€they€will€be€frustrated€in€any€ambitions€they€have€to€heal€the€relationshipÏproblems.€€It€follows€that€restorative€justice€with€tort,€contract,€labor€or€competition€law€mayÏnot€be€as€conceptually€different€from€restorative€justice€with€criminal€law€as€we€might€initiallyÏassume.€€Restorative€justice€is€a€whole€of€law€issueÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú3Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óó€which€is€about€widening€the€agenda€of€legalÐ ©)Ÿ$2 Ðdisputes€to€relational€rifts€that€might€be€healed.€€In€a€matter€like€personal€injury€tort€cases,€theÐ  +&4 Ðrelationship€issues€may€be€more€profound€with€a€family€doctor€who€prescribed€a€dangerousÏdrug€recklessly,€a€supervisor€at€work€who€failed€to€show€due€care,€than€with€criminal€injury€byÏa€stranger.€€The€tensions€between€winning€in€court€and€getting€on€with€restoration€may€also€beÏmore€profound:ÌÌÓB.ÜÜ´4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓà0 ´ àIn€civil€practice€in€the€US€it€is€common€for€the€motor€vehicle€accident€traumatic€brainÏinjury€plaintiff€to€have€any€rehabilitation€efforts€postponed€until€after€the€case€has€beenÏtried/settled.€€This€translates€to€a€patient€waiting€4+€years€before€participating€in€anyÏprograms€that€look€to€restoring€lost€functional/cognitive€abilities,€ð ðreprogrammingððÏattitudes€and€goals€into€realistic€ones,€and€coordinating€such€processes€with€familyÏmembers,€co„workers,€and€friends.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú4Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óó€Ð°¦´ü!´ü! ÐÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ´4‹XEÓÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò òÝ  Ýó óIn€cases€like€traumatic€brain€injury,€the€need€to€involve€caregivers€and€children€of€the€victim€in€aÐ ž” Ðrestorative€justice€process€when€their€lives€are€also€permanently€and€devastatingly€tranformed€isÏgenerally€more€profound€than€in€a€criminal€shooting€case€for€example.€€And€the€need€is€greaterÏfor€priority€to€be€given€to€professional€and€family€consensus€on€a€restorative€health€andÏcaregiving€plan.€€The€anger€a€woman€directs€at€a€large€corporation€when€she€believes€it€hasÏdestroyed€her€body€through€leakage€of€silicone€from€a€breast€implant€can€be€greater€and€moreÏself„destructive€for€the€victim€even€than€the€anger€a€rape€victim€experiences€toward€theÏindividual€who€has€defiled€her€body.€€This€is€especially€so€because€of€the€number€of€years€thatÏpass€before€a€mass€tort€case€may€fizz€to€an€unsatisfactory€conclusion€such€as€the€corporationÏdisappearing€into€bankruptcy.€ÌÌòòRestorative€Justice€and€Responsive€Regulationóó€€(Braithwaite,€2002:€240„242)€seeks€to€showÐ »&±!. Ðhow€business„business€disputes€over€matters€like€contracts€tend€to€become€individual„individualÏdisputes€because€there€are€issues€of€trust€among€the€individuals€who€negotiated€the€contract.€ÏIndeed,€very€often€a€contract€dispute€is€just€a€symptom€of€a€deeper€dispute€over€humanÐ  +&4 Ðrelationships.€€If€this€is€true€and€if€it€is€also€true€that€litigation€or€even€litigotiation€(negotiation€inÏthe€shadow€of€a€litigation€strategy€(Parker,€1999:€178))€puts€the€lid€on€legally€irrelevantÏrelationship€issues,€then€privileging€restorative€justice€at€the€base€of€a€regulatory€pyramid€opensÏup€the€option€of€having€a€crack€at€the€underlying€resentments€as€a€dispute€resolution€strategy.€€ÌÌNote€that€this€involves€a€radically€different€dispute€resolution€strategy€than€we€normally€find€withÏmediation€or€arbitration€positioned€as€a€pre„trial€settlement€process.€€In€the€latter€context,Ïmediators€and€arbitrators€tend€to€want€to€keep€personal€resentments€out€of€the€process,Ïeschew€the€strategy€of€articulating€hurts€so€as€to€invite€gestures€of€healing,€keep€the€lid€onÏemotions,€and€narrow€the€issues€on€the€table€to€those€that€are€legally€relevant.€€This€is€even€trueÏof€family€court€mediation,€terrain€where€one€might€have€thought€the€disputes€were€maximallyÏrelational.€€ÌÝ‚ ÿ=gambiÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌòòRestorative€Justice€and€Responsive€Regulationóó€identified€three€characteristics€of€our€deepestÐ   Ðdisputes€that€prove€of€strategic€importance€to€the€policy€analysis:€(1)€They€are€complex€in€aÏway€that€means€they€would€cascade€across€many€areas€of€law€were€it€not€for€the€fact€thatÏlawyers€tend€to€simplify€them€to€the€one€category€of€law€that€courts€can€most€productively€(forÏtheir€clients)€digest;€(2)€Our€deepest€disputes€have€disturbing€relational€meanings€to€litigants€andÏare€markers€of€identity;€(3)€Legal€disputes€between€two€individuals€are€uncommon€and€whenÏthey€do€occur€they€are€usually€disputes€between€individuals€that€are€embedded€in€organizationalÏaction.€€When€disputes€get€legally€or€economically€serious,€organizational€actors€of€wider€swayÏget€involved€ð!ð€corporate€complainants€with€the€same€grievance€as€the€individual,€governmentÏregulators,€or€industry€associations.€€Private€law€cases€become€public€law€cases€whenÏgovernments€cannot€politically€afford€to€sit€on€the€sideline.€€The€main€exceptions€to€point€(3)€areÏvery€important€ones€ð!ð€family€law€disputes,€disputes€between€neighbours€and€crimes€perpetratedÏby€individual€strangers.€ÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò òÝ  Ýó ó€Ð  +&4 ÐÐ —,'6 ÐÝ‚ ÿuambiÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔFrom€a€Zero„Sum€to€a€More€Win„Win€InstitutionÔ ÎvÔóóÐ   ÐÝ‚ÿnvambiÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î ~vÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝThe€evidence€is€that€participants€are€less€angry€following€restorative€justice€conferences€thanÏthey€are€following€court€cases€(Strang,€2003;€Poulson,€2003).€€€But€on€anger,€as€on€a€lot€of€theÏother€destructive€effects€disputants€suffer,€the€theoretical€claim€of€restorative€justice€is€more€thanÏjust€that€there€will€be€less€of€it.€€€Heather€Strang€(2003)€finds€that€win„win€for€victims€andÏoffenders€is€more€common€in€criminal€restorative€justice€conferences€than€in€court,€several€timesÏmore€common.€€Win„win€on€emotional€healing€means€that€victims€get€more€emotional€healingÏafter€the€crime€and€offenders€get€more€emotional€healing.€€Lose„lose,€which€Strang€finds€to€beÏmore€common€in€cases€randomly€assigned€to€court,€means€that€victims€suffer€increasedÏemotional€hurts€and€offenders€also€suffer€greater€hurt.€€Strang€thinks€this€result€may€occurÏbecause€justice€is€relational.€€Healing€for€offenders€begets€healing€for€victims€and€vice€versa.€ÏAnd€hurt€begets€hurt.€€Whereas€courtroom€justice€has€a€reciprocal€negative€dynamic€of€hurtÏbegetting€hurt,€restorative€justice€is€characterized€by€healing€begetting€healing€(Zehr€1995).€ÏStrangððs€data€are€on€too€small€a€sample€to€be€definitive€in€testing€this€relational€hypothesisÏ(n=240),€but€they€are€suggestive€that€these€empirical€claims€may€be€correct,€especially€inÏrelation€to€emotional€healing€and€hurting.ÌÌWhat€is€clear€in€Strangððs€data€is€that€win„win€is€more€common€in€restorative€justice,€and€not€justÏon€emotional€outcomes.€€What€is€not€so€clear€is€whether€this€is€a€relational€effect€of€healing€forÏthe€victim€begetting€healing€for€the€offender.€€It€does€look€like€some€of€this€is€going€on.€€Or€is€itÏmore€an€effect€of€expanding€the€agenda€of€issues€in€dispute€creating€a€bigger€contract€zoneÏwhere€win„win€is€a€formal€possibility?€€The€idea€is€that€if€X€wants€A,€Y€wants€not„A€but€B,€win„¼lose€is€the€only€option.€€But€if€it€is€also€true€that€X€wants€P,€and€Y€wants€Q,€then€A€and€Q€mayÏbe€win„win€if€A€is€more€important€to€X€than€P€and€Q€is€more€important€to€Y€than€B.€€ByÏwidening€the€agenda€of€the€dispute€from€A,B€to€A,B,P,Q€settlement€is€more€possible€becauseÏcreativity€can€be€used€to€open€up€a€larger€contract€zone.€€Widening€the€agenda,€especially€ontoÏan€agenda€about€relationships,€is€precisely€what€restorative€justice€does.€€The€relationalÏhypothesis€and€the€contract€zone€hypothesis€as€to€why€win„win€is€more€common€in€restorativeÐ —,'6 Ðjustice€may€therefore€be€related€rather€than€separate€hypotheses.€€Finding€either€plausibleÏdepends€on€being€persuaded€by€stories€of€how€disputes€actually€€play€out€that€I€have€attemptedÏto€provide€in€my€longer€work€(eg€Braithwaite,€2002:€240„242)€that€it€is€routinely€true€that€thereÏare€cross„cutting€€non„legal€conflicts€entangled€with€legal€ones.€ÌÌA€third€explanation€of€higher€rates€of€win„win€in€restorative€justice€may€be€to€do€with€theÏpolitics€of€identity.€€Adversarialism€locks€disputants€into€identities€like€victim€versus€gangÏmember,€business€versus€complaining€consumer.€€What€restorative€justice€encourages€is€theÏpursuit€of€shared€superordinate€identities€which€are€a€basis€for€cooperation€ð!ð€such€as€schoolÏmember€rather€than€school€bully€or€victim€(Eggins€1999;€Morrison€2001).€€It€may€be€that€evenÏconference€participants€who€share€no€pre„existing€superordinate€identity€can€discover€a€kind€ofÏshared€identity€as€a€group€of€people€who€work€together€to€solve€the€problem€that€has€beenÏplaced€in€the€centre€of€the€circle.€€In€these€senses,€restorative€justice€tends€to€be€different€fromÏsettlement€mediations€ordered€by€courts€when€they€shy€away€from€widening€the€agenda€ofÏdisputes€into€the€(legally€irrelevant)€arena€of€human€relationships€between€the€disputants€or€theÏarena€of€shared€identities.€€My€rebuttable€empirical€claim€is€that€if€legally€narrowedÏmediation/arbitration€were€replaced€by€restorative€justice,€we€would€see€more€settlement€andÏless€litigation.€ÌÌFrom€a€longer„term€perspective,€this€may€be€even€more€true.€€We€have€seen€that€it€is€in€theÏnature€of€disputes€between€human€beings€that€they€are€connected€to€other€disputes€of€aÏseemingly€unrelated€kind.€€Hence,€a€settlement€to€a€legally€narrowed€dispute€that€sweepsÏdeeper€underlying€disputes€off€the€agenda€may€plant€seeds€of€resentment€that€will€burst€into€aÏbroader€dispute€later.€ÌÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔDeterrence,€Incapacitation€and€Relational€DisputesÔ ÛˆÔóóÐ ©)Ÿ$2 ÐÝ‚ÿ{ˆambiÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î©)‹ˆÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝThe€concern€was€raised€above€that€disputes€like€tax€litigation€are€in€the€realm€of€rationalÏcalculation€so€that€relational€resentments€will€not€be€important€to€their€just€resolution.€Ð —,'6 ÐObversely,€it€can€be€argued€that€a€rational€actor€model€is€irrelevant€to€say€a€dispute€over€theÏcustody€of€a€child.€€I€think€not.€€Certainly€with€child€custody€there€is€more€reason€to€opt€for€aÏjustice€that€is€not€blind€to€personal€resentments€and€relationship€issues€between€the€contestantsÏthan€in€a€tax€dispute.€€But€there€are€actually€very€often€reasons€to€escalate€to€deterrentÏstrategies.€€A€parent€who€believes€that€the€level€of€access€the€other€party€is€given€to€their€child€isÏunjust€or€against€the€best€interests€of€the€child€can€be€deterred€from€compromising€anÏagreement€by€the€threat€of€a€reduction€of€their€own€future€access.€€If€they€abuse€a€right€ofÏaccess€by€sexually€assaulting€a€child,€they€can€incapacitated€from€continuing€to€do€so€byÏimprisonment.€€€Geographical€distance€can€also€be€used€to€effectively€incapacitate€access.€€ÌÌThe€general€claims€of€the€theory€here€are:ÌÓB.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  à1.à 4 àRestorative€justice€is€more€often€useful€to€securing€justice€than€deterrence€and€so€ourÐ ' Ðpresumption€should€be€to€opt€for€restorative€justice€as€a€strategy€of€first€resort.Ð 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  à2.à 4 àDeterrence€is€more€often€useful€to€securing€justice€than€incapacitation€and€so€ourÐ   Ðpresumption€should€be€to€opt€for€deterrence€before€the€last€resort€of€incapacitation.€Ð 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  à3.à 4 àSome€injustices€are€more€calculative€(e.g.€tax€cheating)€and€with€them€we€can€be€moreÐ ù Ðwilling€to€override€the€presumption€in€1.€Ð 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  à4.à 4 àOther€injustices€are€more€relational€(e.g.€child€custody€abuses)€and€with€them€we€shouldÐ ñç" Ðbe€more€reluctant€to€override€the€presumption€in€1.Ð 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  à5.à 4 àTherefore€denying€ourselves€the€capacity€to€be€responsive€up€and€down€the€fullÐ ß Õ& Ðenforcement€pyramid€is€contrary€to€the€interests€of€justice€in€any€serious€legal€dispute.€€€Ð 4ü!4ü! ÐÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ‚,Œ ŠXEÓòòRestorative€Justice€and€Responsive€Regulation€óó€argues€that€it€should€follow€from€theseÐ Í#Ã* Ðpropositions€that€for€any€serious€legal€dispute€citizens€should€be€guaranteed€a€right€to€bothÏrestorative€justice€and€to€a€justice€of€the€courts€that€might€resort€to€deterrence€or€incapacitation.€ÏAs€no€society€currently€funds€restorative€justice€programs€at€a€level€to€guarantee€the€first€rightÏand€no€society€funds€legal€aid€at€a€level€to€guarantee€the€second,€this€seems€a€wildly€utopianÏprescription.€€€€ÌÐ —,'6 ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ  ÔThe€Pragmatics€of€Legal€System€TransformationÔ –ÔóóÐ   ÐÝ‚ÿ¦•ambiÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î ¶•ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝThe€key€empirical€claim€toward€rendering€this€prescription€less€utopian€was€that€the€legal€worldÏchanged€dramatically€in€the€course€of€the€twentieth€century€from€one€where€most€legal€disputesÏwere€between€individuals€to€one€where€one€or€both€sides€to€most€disputes€are€organizationalÏactors€(corporations,€governments,€NGOs)€(Braithwaite,€2002:€Chapter€8).€€€Moreover,€it€wasÏargued€that€even€where€the€dispute€is€individual€versus€individual€(for€example€in€its€legalÏdefinition€as€a€private€contract€dispute),€if€we€allow€the€definition€of€the€dispute€to€be€widenedÏto€a€dispute€that€might€also€be€about€industrial€relations,€anti„discrimination€law,€the€public€lawÏof€consumer€protection€and€relationships€of€trust,€we€might€find€that€there€are€organizations€asÏwell€as€individuals€implicated€in€ways€that€are€important€to€finding€a€path€to€a€just€outcome.€€ÌÌI€will€not€make€the€case€here€that€organizations€are€involved€in€important€ways€in€most€of€theÏdisputes€that€go€to€law€in€the€twenty„first€century€(in€a€way€that€was€not€true€a€century€ago).€€IfÏthis€claim€is€right,€a€strategy€developed€by€Christine€Parker€(1999)€shows€how€to€move€towardÏthe€utopia€of€a€right€to€both€restorative€justice€and€the€justice€of€the€courts€for€any€serious€legalÏdispute.€€€Parker€accepts€the€hypothesis€that€organizations€are€implicated€in€a€large€proportionÏof€the€injustices€of€the€contemporary€world:ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà0@..àà0@..àPeople€experience€domination€in€the€places€where€they€spend€their€daily€lives€in€the€presence€ofÏmore€powerful€others€ð!ð€families,€schools,€workplaces,€shops,€government€departments€andÏcommunity€organizations.€€Because€commonplace€dominations€make€up€most€injustice,€it€is€inÏthese€institutional€loci€that€citizens€will€frequently€experience€injustice€(or€be€enriched€by€justice)Ï(Parker€1999,€p.€174).€ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿMœcan€ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌSo€what€is€the€implication€of€our€story€about€legal€disputes€between€individuals€ceasing€to€beÏthe€majority€of€disputes?ÌÌIt€opens€up€the€possibility€of€the€state€ð ðsteering€rather€than€rowingðð€(Osborne€and€GaeblerÏ1992)€the€justice€system.€€In€a€variety€of€other€arenas€the€regulatory€state€has€moved€away€fromÐ —,'6 Ðthe€direct€provision€of€services€(like€health€or€justice)€to€the€public€regulation€of€the€privateÏprovision€of€such€services€(Majone€1994;€Loughlin€and€Scott€1997;€Parker€1999;€BraithwaiteÏ2000).€€The€core€idea€of€the€regulatory€state€is€regulated€self„regulation€(meta„regulation),€anÏidea€it€shares€with€reflexive€law€(Teubner€1983)€and€enforced€self„regulation€as€a€form€ofÏresponsive€regulation€(Ayres€and€Braithwaite,€1992:€Chapter€4).€€Justice,€like€health,€can€neverÏbe€a€perfect€fit€to€the€regulatory€state€paradigm€because€government€itself€will€always€be€one€ofÏthe€organizational€actors€that€is€a€principal€site€of€injustice.€€In€response€to€this,€regulation€of€oneÏpart€of€the€state€by€another€(for€example€inspectors€of€prisons€ð!ð€some€public,€some€private)€areÏpart€of€regulatory€society€scholarship€(Hood€et€al.€1999).€€€€ÌÌParkerððs€responsive€regulatory€idea€is€that€each€organization€(public€or€private)€above€a€certainÏsize€would€be€required€by€law€to€prepare€an€access€to€justice€plan€in€relation€to€all€the€kinds€ofÏinjustices€its€activities€are€likely€to€touch€ð!ð€injustices€to€prisoners€if€it€is€a€prison,€to€consumers€ifÏit€is€a€business,€to€creditors,€shareholders,€suppliers,€and€so€on.€€Very€large€organizations€mightÏbe€required€to€report€annually€and€publicly€(on€the€internet)€on€their€performance€under€thisÏplan.€For€organizations€with€only€100„1000€employees€reporting€might€only€be€requiredÏtriennially€(unless€they€had€experienced€special€problems€with€access€to€justice).€€The€keyÏperformance€requirement€would€be€continuous€improvement€in€access€to€justice.€€TheÏorganization€would€have€to€demonstrate€to€independent€auditors€who€examine€all€disputesÏtouched€by€its€activities€that€it€had€improved€access€to€justice€compared€to€the€last€reportingÏperiod.€€These€access€to€justice€auditors,€who€would€be€accredited€as€independent€andÏcompetent€by€an€accreditation€agency,€would€examine€complaint€files,€staff,€student€orÏcustomer€satisfaction€surveys,€practical€availability€of€dispute€resolution,€evidence€thatÏdisputants€were€advised€of€their€rights€to€appeal€outcomes€to€the€courts,€evidence€of€disputantÏsatisfaction€with€the€fairness€of€the€dispute€resolution€they€got€and€evidence€of€the€effectivenessÏof€dispute€prevention.€€The€latter€is€particularly€important€because€it€will€usually€be€the€case€thatÏthe€most€efficient€way€for€an€organization€to€continuously€reduce€the€injustice€for€which€it€isÏresponsible€will€be€dispute€prevention€rather€than€dispute€resolution.€€€The€auditors€would€lookÐ —,'6 Ðfor€evidence€of€internal€deliberation€about€what€the€organizationððs€gravest€justice€problems€areÏand€justice€improvement€studies€that€measure€improved€performance€indicators€for€the€targetedÏinjustices.€€€ÌÌIt€follows€that€every€large€organizationððs€access€to€justice€plan€would€look€different.€UniversitiesÏmight€prioritise€fair€assessment€and€quality€of€education€outcomes€for€students€in€their€access€toÏjustice€plans,€transparency€to€students€of€how€assessment€and€teaching€quality€is€administeredÏand€participation€of€student€representatives€in€that€administration.€€A€multinational€miningÏcompany€might€emphasize€environmental€justice,€occupational€health€and€safety€and€land€rightsÏof€Indigenous€peoples€on€whose€traditional€lands€mines€are€opened.€€They€might€prioritiseÏparticipation€of€environmental€groups,€mine€workers€in€remote€communities€and€IndigenousÏelders€in€their€dispute€resolution€and€prevention€plans.€ÌÌA€major€economic€efficiency€argument€for€the€access€to€justice€plan€is€that€it€shifts€most€of€theÏcosts€of€dispute€resolution€into€the€hands€of€the€actors€who€control€dispute€prevention.€€TheÏidea€is€that€the€organizational€sector€of€the€economy€would€internalise€most€of€the€costs€of€theÏdisputing€externalities€they€cause.€€And€that€the€cheapest€way€for€them€to€internalize€the€costs€ofÏjustice€would€be€to€prevent€injustice.€€Parker€(1999,2002)€and€others€(Sigler€and€MurphyÏ1988;€V.€Braithwaite€1993)€have€written€a€great€deal€about€what€makes€for€excellence€in€intra„¼organizational€access€to€justice,€corporate€integrity€and€compliance€systems€and€on€theÏstandards€that€have€been€set€by€industry€associations,€regulatory€agencies€and€voluntaryÏstandards€bodies€around€the€world€on€these€matters.€€I€will€not€traverse€this€research€here.€€ButÏit€is€important€to€note€that€requiring€corporations€to€develop€plans€for€increasing€access€toÏjustice€sets€them€a€challenge€of€a€kind€they€have€a€lot€of€experience€in€meeting.€€€€ÌÌWhen€a€lot€of€dissatisfied€patients,€workers€or€shareholders€were€taking€an€organization€toÏcourt,€this€would€trigger€heavier€regulation€of€the€organization€by€the€access€to€justiceÏaccreditation€agency.€€A€second€auditor€might€be€sent€in€to€directly€observe€the€organizationððsÐ —,'6 Ðdispute€resolution€processes,€to€work€with€the€organization€to€prepare€a€dispute€preventionÏplan.€€Implementing€the€agreed€dispute€prevention€plan€would€be€mandatory€„€heavy€legalÏpenalties€would€apply€when€there€was€a€failure€to€implement.€€Parker€(1999,€p.€190)€alsoÏrecommends€that€courts€impose€exemplary€damages€on€organizational€defendants€that€hadÏfailed€to€prevent€the€litigation€by€making€their€access€to€justice€policies€work.€€€ÌÌA€regime€of€access€to€justice€plans€would€to€some€degree€be€self„enforcing.€€For€example,Ïfirms€in€a€chain€of€custody€for€a€hazardous€chemical€ð!ð€raw€material€supplier,€manufacturer,Ïreprocessor,€distributor,€retailer€ð!ð€would€refuse€to€do€business€with€a€member€of€the€chainÏwhich€lacked€a€credible€complaints€resolution€system€lest€the€complaints€from€environmentalistsÏor€harmed€consumers€came€to€them€instead.€€€€ÌÌWhat€Parker€is€advocating€in€effect€is€responsive€meta„regulation€of€access€to€justice.€€AccessÏto€justice€becomes€less€something€the€state€provides,€more€something€the€state€regulates€othersÏto€provide.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú5Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óó€€€Here€it€is€important€to€note€that€as€in€any€responsive€regulatory€strategy,€there€is€aÐ Œ‚ Ðcritical€residual€role€for€direct€state€provision€(in€this€case€of€access€to€justice).€€€€The€keyÏeconomic€idea€of€Parkerððs€approach€is€that€by€making€the€organizational€sector€of€the€economyÏpay€for€most€of€those€disputes€that€are€currently€pricing€the€justice€system€beyond€the€reach€ofÏordinary€people,€existing€court€and€legal€aid€budgets€would€be€freed€up€for€individual„individualÏdisputes.€€If€we€get€most€commercial€litigation€out€of€the€courts,€resources€can€be€shifted€to€theÏfamily€court.€€The€most€expensive€parts€of€our€present€justice€system€are€the€tying€up€of€theÏhigher€courts€with€commercial€litigation€for€the€rich€and€the€tying€up€of€the€prisons€system€(andÏthe€lower,€criminal€courts)€by€the€poor.€€A€reform€program€of€restorative€criminal€justice€thatÏreduces€the€latter€cost€and€access€to€justice€plans€that€reduce€the€former€might€therefore€beÏself„funding.€€When€much€of€the€cost€of€commercial€disputes€is€shifted€to€large€companies€andÏmuch€of€the€cost€of€regulating€criminals€is€shifted€from€prisons€to€the€compassionate€€regulationÐ ©)Ÿ$2 Ðand€care€of€relatives€and€friends,€the€resources€saved€would€be€considerable.€€These€resourceÏsavings€might€fund€a€quantum€increase€in€legal€aid€so€battered€women€can€be€guaranteed€qualityÏlegal€advice€when€they€choose€to€fight€for€their€rights€in€the€family€court.€€The€resource€savingsÏof€the€access€to€justice€plans€model€could€also€guarantee€the€option€of€restorative€justice€circles€Ïto€battered€women€ð!ð€rather€than€just€quick€and€dirty€one„on„one€mediation€in€the€shadow€of€anÏself„represented€court€appearance.€€The€cost€savings€at€the€commercial€and€criminal€ends€of€theÏsystem€could€also€fund€more€community€justice€centres€that€can€provide€a€restorative€justiceÏservice€for€neighbourhood€disputes€and€other€individual„versus„individual€disputes.€€€ÌÌThe€goals€of€the€access€to€justice€accreditation€agency€under€the€proposed€transformation€ofÏthe€legal€system€would€be€to€ensure€that:ÌÌÓC€  ÿÿ$3&CÓÓB.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓà0  àà Ü àRestorative€justice€becomes€available€for€all€genuine€(non„vexatious)Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú6Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óó€grievances€of€injustice.€Ð ž” ÐThis€would€be€achieved€by:€Ð ü!ü! ÐÓC€  ÿÿ$$CÓÓK1ÜÜ)¡ñ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ‚,Œ ŠXKÓà0 ) àà0¡)ü!)ü!àà0ñ ¡ü!¡ü!àà ¡ àregulating€for€access€to€justice€plans€in€organizations€beyond€a€specified€size;€and€Ð ñ ü!ñ ü! Ðà0 ) àà0¡)ü!)ü!àà0ñ ¡ü!¡ü!àà ¡ àgovernment€funding€for€restorative€justice€programs€to€cover€grievances€beyond€theÏorganizational€sector.€Ð ñ ü!ñ ü! ÐÓC€  ÿÿ$$CÓÓN.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ)¡ñ Œ ŠXNÓà0  àà Ü àLegal€aid€is€allocated€to€ensure€that€any€citizen€of€modest€means€is€legally€represented€whenÏthey€confront€a€serious€legal€dispute€(including€all€family€law€and€criminal€cases)€that€theyÏcannot€or€do€not€wish€to€resolve€through€restorative€justice.€Ð ü!ü! Ðà0  àà Ü àAccess€to€justice€plans€and€state„subsidized€restorative€justice€programs€safeguard€fundamentalÏhuman€rights€;€they€are€responsively€regulated€to€continuously€improve€the€quality€of€accessÏto€justice,€including€human€rights.€€Ð ü!ü! Ðà0  àà Ü à€Annual€reports€are€produced€on€changes€in€the€patterns€of€injustice€revealed€by€theÏaccreditation€agencyððs€oversight€of€the€private€and€public€provision€of€access€to€justice.Ð ü!ü! ÐÓC€  ÿÿ$$CÓÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ‚,Œ ŠXEÓÐ ©)Ÿ$2 ÐPoints€(3)€and€(4)€are€the€goals€the€regulator€would€have€to€meet€if€€we€are€to€confront€whatÏBraithwaite€(2002)€argues€are€the€three€major€pathologies€of€Alternative€Dispute€ResolutionÏ(ADR)€„€the€domestication€of€injustice€as€conflict,€the€privatization€of€the€public€and€imbalanceÏof€power.€€How€this€might€be€accomplished€is€the€challenge€for€the€next€section.ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& e ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔòòÝ  ÝÌÔ  ÔCan€Restorative€and€Responsive€Justice€Correct€the€Pathologies€of€ADRÔ 2ÊÔóóÐ ] S  ÐÝ‚ÿÑÉe€thÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'eæ áÉÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝCritiques€of€the€pathologies€of€both€the€courts€and€ADR€tend€to€be€so€pessimistic€because€theyÏare€so€micro.€€They€lack€a€macro„sociological€imagination.€€Certainly,€most€individual€courtÏcases€and€most€ADR€cases€can€be€pulled€apart€to€reveal€imbalances€of€power€that€play€out€soÏthe€transaction€of€the€case€helps€the€powerful€more€than€the€powerless€disputant.€€But€there€is€aÏfallacy€of€composition€in€arguing€that€therefore€the€sum€of€all€those€court€and€ADR€casesÏincreases€imbalances€of€power.€€Engel€and€Munger€(1996)€show€that€people€with€disabilitiesÏalmost€never€assert€their€rights€in€the€courts.€€However,€they€do€ask€their€workmates,€teachers,Ïclassmates€to€respect€those€rights€in€the€organizations€across€which€they€move€theirÏwheelchairs.€€One€of€the€reasons€they€often€get€a€positive€response€is€that€the€courts€haveÏdeclared€rights€of€wheelchair€access€to€buildings€and€like€rights.€€Justice,€as€Galanter€(1981)Ïinstructed€us,€must€be€seen€as€occurring€in€many€rooms.€€While€the€courtroom€is€just€one€ofÏthose€rooms,€the€public€discourse€of€rights€it€articulates€has€an€influence€on€the€private€justiceÏsystems€in€the€many€other€rooms€where€the€paraplegic€seeks€to€manoeuvre€her€wheelchair.€ÌÌThe€macro„sociological€challenge€of€transforming€legal€institutions€into€things€that€reduceÏimbalances€of€power€is€to€work€on€the€way€the€public€justice€of€the€courtroom€influences€theÏprivate€justice€that€occurs€in€other€rooms,€and€vice€versa.€€The€vice€versa€is€critically€importantÏbecause€commercial€interests€ð!ð€of€business,€the€legal€profession€and€the€crime€control€industryÏ(Christie€1993)€ð!ð€dominate€the€stage€in€courtrooms.€€Indigenous,€womensðð€and€disabledÏpersonsðð€groups€do€not€dominate€the€courts.€€The€macro„legal€change€needed€is€(a)€to€push€outÏof€the€courts€most€of€the€cases€those€commercial€interests€are€presently€pushing€into€them;€(b)Ïto€give€voice€to€the€interests€of€less€powerful€citizens€through€restorative€justice;€and€(c)€to€openÐ —,'6 Ða€communication€channel€between€restorative€justice€and€courtroom€justice€so€the€justice€of€theÏpeople€influences€the€justice€of€the€law.€€We€must€also€keep€open€the€communication€channelÏfrom€the€justice€of€the€courtroom€downstairs€to€the€private€justice€that€occurs€in€so€many€otherÏrooms.€€Indeed€we€must€improve€it.€€Parker€(1999,€p.€64)€has€theorised€the€macro€challenge€asÏthe€pursuit€of€a€culture€of€justice€where€every€potential€claimant€has€a€choice€of€whether€toÏpursue€their€dispute€informally€or€formally,€yet€where€ð ðless€disputing€is€necessary€becauseÏjustice€is€less€frequently€deniedðð.€€But€this€will€always€be€a€romantic€ideal€unless€we€regulateÏorganizational€provision€of€access€to€informal€justice€so€that€disputants€can€always€get€it€and€itsÏquality€becomes€so€high€that€disputants€actually€prefer€it€to€the€justice€of€the€courts.€€Once€theÏcourts€are€uncluttered€with€the€disputes€that€arise€in€the€organizational€sector,€an€affordable€rightÏto€the€justice€of€the€courts€could€become€real.€€Yet€the€right€to€restorative€justice€is€what€mostÏpowerless€citizens€would€actually€choose€because€in€most,€but€not€all,€cases€it€would€be€theÏsuperior€justice€for€them€(see€the€evidence€in€Braithwaite,€2002:€Chapter€3€and€in€Parker€1999;ÏStrang€and€Sherman,€2003;€Poulson,€2003).€ÌÌPut€another€way,€we€must€reframe€the€choice€between€courtroom€justice€and€ADR€so€it€is€noÏlonger€a€debate€about€where€the€imbalance€of€power€will€be€worse.€€The€better€ideal€to€pursueÏis€a€macro€restructuring€of€the€legal€process€so€that€the€powerless€always€have€a€choice€of€bothÏand€always€have€access€to€good€legal€advice€so€they€can€choose€the€venue€where€theÏimbalance€of€power€will€be€less.€€Moreover,€the€macro€challenge€is€to€change€the€nature€of€theÏpower„imbalance€dynamic€between€the€two.€€Instead€of€a€person€being€dominated€in€a€familyÏlaw€mediation€because€the€alternative€is€a€court€hearing€in€which€her€partner€is€legallyÏrepresented€and€she€is€not,€that€person€can€be€empowered€by€a€transformed€system€wherein€ifÏshe€is€dominated€in€the€mediation€she€can€walk€away€from€it€with€assurance€that€she€can€fight€inÏcourt€with€a€lawyer€to€help€her.€€The€ideal€is€that€the€most€powerless€complainants€must€be€ableÏto€regulate€the€other€responsively.€€Restorative€justice€and€responsive€regulation€are€not€simplyÏtwin€capabilities€that€should€be€available€to€the€state€as€dispenser€of€justice.€€They€should€beÏavailable€to€every€potential€player€of€the€justice€game.€€If€our€analysis€is€correct€that€restorativeÐ —,'6 Ðjustice€is€a€powerful€tool€for€securing€respect€for€legal€rights,€but€more€powerful€if€it€is€backedÏby€the€possibility€of€responsive€escalation€to€litigated€justice,€then€an€important€way€of€securingÏequal€protection€of€rights€is€to€make€both€restorative€justice€and€responsive€regulation€asÏavailable€to€the€most€powerless€citizens€as€they€are€to€powerful€corporations€and€stateÏregulators.€€ÌÌBraithwaite€(2002)€perhaps€is€utopian€that€in€a€domain€like€family€law€simply€improving€existingÏmediation€programs€by€making€them€more€like€restorative€justice€circles€would€make€muchÏdifference.€€After€all€in€many€societies€mediation€is€already€successful€in€helping€divert€about€95Ïpercent€of€divorces€to€settlement.€€€Simply€because€most€people€prefer€conferenced€outcomesÏto€litigated€outcomes€after€the€event,€this€does€not€mean€that,€up€front,€resentful€people€willÏprefer€the€peace€of€reconciliation€to€the€vindication€of€adjudication€(if€they€win).€€€Availability€ofÏa€restorative€justice€option€may€do€little€to€increase€a€95€percent€settlement€outcome€alreadyÏbeing€achieved€in€a€field€like€family€law.€€€But€it€may€make€the€settlements€more€satisfactoryÏthan€those€delivered€by€traditional€family€court€mediation.€€If€various€members€of€the€divorceesððÏextended€families€or€friendship€network€are€driving€demands€for€vindication,€resources€orÏcustody€in€the€dispute,€then€it€may€be€better€to€have€them€in€the€settlement€circle.€€Without€theirÏpresence,€according€to€restorative€justice€theory,€settlements€are€more€likely€to€unravel.€€ÏMoreover,€those€relatives€and€friends€may€be€able€to€offer€the€practical€help€and€support,€withÏchildcare€for€example,€to€make€agreements€work€well.€€Finally,€self„representing€disputants€in€aÏrestorative€justice€circle€may€not€be€able€to€call€on€a€lawyer€to€resist€the€domination€of€aÏdomineering€spouse,€but€may€choose€to€have€cousin€Mary€sit€beside€her€precisely€becauseÏcousin€Mary€is€so€effectively€assertive€in€speaking€up€on€her€behalf.€€Or€she€may€choose€toÏhave€publicly€funded€battered€womenððs€advocates€present€if€fear€of€battering€is€an€issue€for€her.€Ï€ÌÌThis€is€not€to€deny€that€there€will€be€situations€where€disputants€will€wisely€choose€one„on„oneÏmediation€over€the€presence€of€a€phlanx€of€relatives€when€they€are€likely€to€be€more€destructiveÐ —,'6 Ðthan€constructive.€€In€a€domain€as€important€as€family€law,€we€need€a€range€of€different€types€ofÏmediated,€conferenced€and€trial€paths,€where€there€is€competition€between€state„supplied€andÏNGO„supplied€ADR€options.€€Evidence€on€how€procedurally€fair,€on€what€percentage€ofÏdisputants€got€what€they€wanted,€should€be€collected€and€fed€back€to€new€disputants€to€informÏtheir€choices€of€which€path€to€take.€€If€there€are€many€evaluated€paths€to€settlement,€theÏcompetition€will€improve€the€quality€of€both€restorative€justice€and€courtroom€justice.€€If€thereÏare:€(a)€many€ADR€paths,€(b)€simplified,€accessible€data€on€when€they€produce€good€outcomesÏfor€men€and€women,€and€(c)€helpful€pathfinders€to€open€gates€to€those€ADR€programs,€thenÏgatekeeping€to€the€court€can€be€less€coercive.€€There€should€be€no€need€to€make€pre„trialÏmediation€compulsory€when€there€is€both€gateopening€to€genuine€choice€and€wellÏcommunicated€evidence€on€the€efficacy€of€the€plurality€of€options.€€€ÌÌEqual€access€to€restorative€justice€and€the€courts€(through€legal€aid)€is€not€enough€however.€ÏThe€organizational€sector€of€the€economy€will€still€have€organization€on€their€side.€€The€remedyÏto€this€is€organization€of€citizen€groups€ð!ð€a€consumer€movement€to€stand€behind€consumers,€anÏIndigenous€rights€movement€to€stand€behind€Indigenous€people,€a€welfare€rights€movement€toÏstand€with€welfare€claimants,€a€tenantsðð€union€to€stand€behind€tenants€and€so€on.€€An€importantÏpart€of€the€function€of€these€NGOs€is€simply€to€be€a€countervailing€lobby€against€the€power€ofÏcorporate€interests.€€Corporate€interests€will€attempt€to€capture,€corrupt€or€politically€influenceÏthe€access€to€justice€accreditation€agency€when€it€impacts€upon€their€interests.€€When€thatÏhappens,€lobbying€from€a€citizen€group€that€exercises€a€countervailing€power,€putting€theÏregulator€in€the€middle,€is€needed€if€we€are€to€avoid€power€imbalance€(Ayres€and€BraithwaiteÏ1992,€Chapter€3).€€ÌÌNGOs€have€a€particularly€important€role€in€overcoming€the€pathology€of€privatized€ADR,€ofÏdepoliticising€disputes€that€should€be€in€the€public€arena,€that€should€be€given€a€collective€asÏopposed€to€an€individualized€quality.€€If€NGOs€are€resource„poor,€they€should€be€eligible€forÏlegal€aid.€€They€must€have€standing€to€sue.€€With€a€little€resourcing€they€can€then€transformÐ —,'6 Ðprivate€troubles€into€public€issues.€€They€can€do€this€through€aggregating€individual€claims€intoÏhigh€profile€class€actions.€€They€can€do€it€by€jumping€in€to€defend€a€restorative€justice€settlementÏthat€is€appealed€to€the€courts€by€a€more€powerful€actor€in€the€system.€€They€can€do€it€byÏappealing€a€restorative€justice€settlement€to€the€courts€to€establish€a€legal€guideline€that€protectsÏagainst€domination.€€They€can€do€it€by€monitoring€the€monitoring€of€patterns€€in€disputes€by€theÏaccess€to€justice€accreditation€agency.€€Guarding€the€guardians€of€access€to€justice.€€NGOsÏneed€more€resources€to€do€this€ð!ð€from€tax€deductible€citizen€donations,€foundations€andÏgovernment€funding.€€Braithwaite€(1998,€p.€364)€has€advocated€a€tax€credit€that€would€giveÏevery€citizen€a€right€to€issue€checks€from€the€taxes€they€pay€to€their€favoured€NGOs€up€to€aÏvalue€of€say€$500.€€ÌÌDepending€on€how€well€resourced€they€are,€NGOs€can€also€play€a€role€in€responding€toÏinvitations€from€less€powerful€or€articulate€citizens€for€support€in€restorative€justice€circles.€€ThisÏis€particularly€important€in€an€arena€like€nursing€home€regulation€where€on€one€side€of€the€circleÏyou€have€a€well„resourced€business,€doctors€and€other€health€care€professionals€and€on€theÏother€residents€who€are€very€old€and€sick,€often€unable€to€voice€their€concerns€audibly€andÏunable€to€sustain€their€attention€on€the€negotiation.€€ÌÌIt€is€hard€for€most€advocacy€NGOs€to€do€a€lot€of€this,€however,€unless€they€are€given€fundingÏspecially€for€this€purpose.€€Volunteer€nursing€home€visitors€can€nevertheless€be€effectiveÏadvocates€with€a€little€training.€€The€first€line€of€defence€against€this€kind€of€imbalance€of€powerÏis€auditors€of€organizational€access€to€justice€plans€collecting€interview€data€on€whether€circleÏparticipants€felt€disadvantaged€or€dominated€because€of€their€age,€sex,€disability€and€so€on,€onÏwhether€circle€facilitators€work€hard€at€getting€a€plural€balance€of€supporters€on€both€sides€of€aÏdispute.€€I€will€not€repeat€the€issues€around€how€circles€might€be€designed€to€generate€reducedÏimbalances€of€power€compared€to€one€on€one€mediation€as€discussed€in€€Braithwaite€(2002:ÏChapter€5).ÌÐ —,'6 ÐAn€important€point€to€make€here€is€that€ADR€is€already€widespread€in€both€the€organizationalÏsector€and€civil€society€generally.€€Power€imbalance€in€those€programs€is€also€widespread.€ÏPrivatized,€corporatized€ADR€is€where€making€the€private€more€public€is€imperative,€where€weÏmust€be€on€guard€against€victims€of€injustice€being€rendered€quiescent€by€domination.€€So€weÏneed€regulation€of€access€to€justice€not€only€to€expand€and€regulate€new€restorative€justiceÏoptions€but€also€to€regulate€the€quality€of€this€large€quantum€of€organizational€ADR€that€isÏalready€provided.€€We€need€regulators€who€get€out€and€discover€what€is€happening€in€some€ofÏthose€extant€programs,€who€blow€the€whistle€on€them€so€appropriate€NGOs€get€concerned€andÏtake€their€concerns€up€to€be€exposed€to€the€justice€of€the€courts.€€Or€NGOs€that€simply€counterÏquiescence€by€speaking€truth€to€power.€ÌÌThe€ideal,€as€articulated€by€Parker€(1999)€and€Braithwaite€and€Parker€(1999)€is€for€the€justiceÏof€the€law,€particularly€fundamental€human€rights,€to€filter€down€into€restorative€justice€and€forÏthe€justice€of€the€people€given€voice€in€restorative€deliberation€to€percolate€up€into€the€justice€ofÏthe€law.€€Advocacy€groups€that€are€politicized€in€their€capacity€to€see€a€private€trouble€thatÏshould€be€turned€into€a€public€issue€are€critical€to€opening€up€both€these€channels€ofÏcommunication.€€ÌÌOur€conclusion€is€not€quite€that€restorative€justice€can€deal€with€the€three€main€pathologies€ofÏADR€better€than€mediation.€€Aspects€of€the€micro„design€and€the€value„framing€of€restorativeÏjustice€as€justice€surely€do€help€with€the€domestication€of€injustice€as€conflict,€the€privatization€ofÏthe€public€and€imbalance€of€power.€€However,€the€main€conclusion€is€that€these€pathologies€ofÏADR€are€not€mainly€addressed€by€measures€internal€to€ADR€design,€but€by€the€way€ADR€isÏarticulated€to€a€macro€restructuring€of€access€to€justice€where€justice€is€no€longer€seen€asÏsomething€that€falls€out€of€a€market€for€lawyering€(with€a€bit€of€òòpro€bonoóó€on€the€side).€€RatherÐ 2((#0 Ðjustice€is€seen€as€a€responsive€regulatory€accomplishment.€€You€get€justice€on€this€view€byÏapplying€restorative€justice€and€responsive€regulation€to€the€provision€of€justice€itself.€€Justice€isÏmost€unlikely€to€fall€out€of€a€system€where€we€simply€rely€on€lawyers€to€be€trained€in€lawÐ —,'6 Ðschools€to€be€ethical€and€then€paid€to€be€the€guardians€of€justice.€€Equally,€justice€is€unlikely€toÏbe€a€product€of€a€market€for€commercial€arbitration€and€other€forms€of€ADR€that€constituteÏsimply€a€competing€professionalism€to€law.€€Many€ADR€advocates€think€it€will.€In€this€they€areÏbeing€starry€eyed,€self„serving,€or€both.€€We€can€only€transform€our€legal€system€from€anÏinjustice€to€a€justice€system€if€we€reinstitutionalize€justice€with€a€framework€of€justice€values€(IÏwould€urge€responsive€republican€values)€that€perhaps€should€be€given€a€constitutional€statusÏ(Braithwaite€1995)€and€a€set€of€responsive€processes€for€regulating€for€justice,€for€ensuring€thatÏall€the€professional€guardians€of€justice€are€guarded,€for€preventing€ordinary€citizens€from€beingÏcrowded€out€of€the€courts€by€those€who€pay€the€piper.€€Otherwise€the€tune€becomes€a€lamentÏfor€citizen€justice€corrupted€as€corporatized€justice.€€ÌÌOne€of€the€paradoxes€of€corporatized€justice,€however,€is€that€constant€corporate€game€playingÏin€the€courts€is€actually€not€the€best€way€to€deliver€the€macro„certainty€in€the€law€that€is€in€theÏinterests€of€the€economy€and€business€as€a€whole€(McBarnet€and€Whelan€1999).€€TheÏcomplexly€incomprehensible€uncertainty€of€the€domains€of€law€most€dominated€by€commercialÏlawyering€ð!ð€corporations€and€tax€ð!ð€are€adequate€demonstrations€of€that.€€The€text€of€these€lawsÏgets€longer€every€year€and€further€beyond€the€comprehension€of€business€people.€€That€is€theÏprice€of€the€courts€becoming€captured€as€a€stage€for€the€most€creative€legal€entrepreneurs.€€ÌÌUnder€responsive€regulation€of€access€to€justice,€organizations€have€a€right€to€test€uncertainÏlaws€in€the€courts,€even€an€obligation€to€do€so€in€circumstances€where€such€uncertainty€isÏblocking€the€access€to€justice€they€would€be€required€to€provide.€€However,€organizations€thatÏpersistently€opt€for€legal€gamesmanship€in€the€courts€to€evade€the€spirit€of€the€law€wouldÏincrease€the€risk€of€failing€to€demonstrate€to€the€accredited€access€to€justice€auditor€that€theyÏhave€improved€access€to€justice.€€This€may€escalate€the€regulatory€oversight€to€which€they€areÏsubject,€shorten€their€audit€cycle,€expose€them€to€exemplary€damages€when€they€lose€cases€inÏthe€courts,€to€being€named€in€reports€to€the€legislature€as€a€firm€that€has€failed€to€improveÏaccess€to€justice.€€If€this€responsive€regulation€worked€in€reducing€the€appeal€of€theÐ —,'6 Ðentrepreneurs€of€legal€obfuscation,€business€leaders€would€spend€less€time€in€court,€more€timeÏrunning€their€businesses€according€to€laws€that€might€be€more€certain.€€Certainty€might€improveÏbecause€law€would€mostly€move€up€from€the€good€faith€operation€of€private€justice€systems€toÏthe€public€courts€because€there€genuinely€was€an€issue€of€law€that€needed€to€be€clarified.€€InÏgeneral€business€people€who€meet€face€to€face€with€their€suppliers,€competitors€or€customersÏwant€to€keep€life€simple,€respect€their€relationships€with€these€others,€by€complying€with€theÏprinciples€of€fair€play€in€the€law€(Collins,€1999).€€If€the€other€side€is€captured€by€a€legalÏentrepreneur€who€advises€them€of€a€way€of€getting€around€the€law,€however,€they€tend€to€getÏangry€and€hire€their€own€legal€mouthpiece€to€do€likewise.€€Often€in€that€circumstance,€theÏbusiness€later€realises€that€litigation€was€not€in€their€interests.€€An€empirical€literature€on€businessÏdisputing€going€back€to€Macaulayððs€(1963)€classic€study€demonstrates€that€this€is€so.€€What€isÏalso€true,€however,€is€that€it€is€not€in€the€interests€of€business€to€have€a€legal€òòsystemóó€where€theÐ ' Ðlaw€is€recurrently€made€more€complex€by€other€business€people€engaging€in€this€kind€ofÏdisputing.€€Business€has€a€profound€interest€in€the€kind€of€culture€of€justice€Parker€(1999)Ïadvocates€ð!ð€a€culture€where€it€is€poor€form€in€the€world€of€business€relationships€to€be€someoneÏwho€seeks€business€advantage€by€corrupting€the€spirit€of€a€just€law.€€Notwithstanding€the€riseÏand€rise€of€commercial€ADR,€business€is€far€away€from€realising€that€collective€interest€in€legalÏcertainty€and€a€business€culture€of€justice€they€can€rely€upon€as€shared€by€those€they€do€dealsÏwith.€€€As€Hugh€Collins€(1999)€points€out,€one€reason€is€that€private€law€is€insufficiently€open€toÏcontinual€reconfiguration€to€absorb€changing€business€expectations.€€Business€gets€moreÏcertainty€when€legal€doctrine€is€continuously€and€contextually€returned€to€business€expectations.€ÏÌÌParkerððs€(1999)€two„channel€communication€ð!ð€top„down€from€the€courts€to€businessÏrestorative€justice€and€bottom„up€from€business€restorative€justice€to€the€courts€„€wouldÏincrease€business€demand€and€legal€responsiveness€for€principle„based€law,€as€opposed€toÏcomplex€and€detailed€rule„based€law.€€If€the€law€is€to€be€a€comprehensible€guide€to€businessÏpeople€who€sort€out€disputes€face€to€face,€complex€rules€that€can€only€be€mediated€throughÐ —,'6 Ðlawyers€is€not€as€useful€as€simple€principles.€€Tax€may€be€an€exception€where€big€business€has€aÏmacro€interest€in€a€hopelessly€complex€law€as€well€as€a€micro€interest€in€exploiting€and€addingÏto€that€complexity€in€specific€disputes.€€It€is€the€macro€complexity€in€the€law€that€makes€itÏpossible€for€big€business€to€iteratively€play€for€the€area€of€the€law€left€grey€after€each€round€ofÏlaw€reform€(Braithwaite,€forthcoming).€€This€enables€many€large€corporations€to€pay€only€asÏmuch€tax€as€they€want€to€pay.€Although€a€more€principle„based€tax€law€may€not€be€in€theÏinterests€of€large€businesses€and€very€wealthy€individuals,€it€is€clearly€in€the€public€interest.€€InÏsome€domains,€big€business€has€come€to€the€party€with€negotiated€justice.€€The€US€andÏAustralia€have€shown€a€lead€with€the€notion€of€Advanced€Pricing€Agreements,€whereby€the€taxÏauthority€reaches€a€product€by€product€agreement€on€how€prices€on€international€intra„¼corporate€sales€will€be€set€for€the€purpose€of€transfer€pricing.€€The€tax€authority€gets€aÏguaranteed€tax€take€from€intra„corporate€sales€and€the€company€is€spared€audits€on€this€matter.€ÏTo€make€restorative€justice€and€responsive€regulation€work€well€in€an€area€like€this,€however,Ïtwo€things€are€needed:€a€formidable€capacity€of€the€tax€authority€to€audit€and€contest€theÏtransfer€prices€of€multinationals€who€stay€out€of€Advance€Pricing€Agreements€and€a€willingnessÏof€the€courts€to€respond€to€such€challenges€with€a€principle„based€approach€to€theÏinterpretation€of€tax€law.€€Recent€evidence€suggests€that€one€reason€the€Australian€TaxationÏOffice€has€been€able€to€increase€corporate€tax€revenue€substantially€as€a€percentage€of€GDPÏsince€the€early€1990s,€unlike€the€US€and€other€major€economies,€is€the€deployment€of€aÏresponsive€meta„regulatory€strategy€(Braithwaite€,€forthcoming).€€Its€innovative€meta„regulationÏof€profit€shifting€by€transfer€pricing€has€netted€a€billion€dollars€in€extra€tax€for€each€million€dollarsÏspent€on€putting€new€target€companies€into€the€meta„regulatory€program.€€There€may€be€manyÏareas€of€law€where€businesses€will€continue€to€pursue€self„interest€by€exploiting€an€uncertaintyÏthat€is€against€their€collective€interests,€but€tax€may€be€the€exception€where€business€in€someÏways€has€a€collective€interest€in€an€uncertain€law.€€All€the€more€reason€why€ordinary€peopleÏshould€push€for€a€structural€transformation€of€the€law€that€makes€the€wealthy€pay€their€fair€shareÏof€public€provision.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÐ —,'6 ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò òÝ  ÝÔ  Ôòòó óGetting€StartedÔ bÔóóÐ   ÐÝ‚ÿ€YouÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'î ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝThe€program€proposed€for€transforming€the€legal€system€would€involve€something€of€aÏrevolutionary€change.€€Before€this€can€happen,€perhaps€we€need€more€of€a€crisis€of€confidence,Ïmore€and€nastier€lawyer€jokes,€a€deeper€cost€of€justice€crisis,€a€deeper€collapse€of€the€integrityÏof€the€tax€system.€€But€we€can€and€are€getting€on€with€the€job€of€bottom„up€restorative€justiceÏprograms€in€many€corners€of€the€justice€system€(Braithwaite,€2002:€Cahpter€1).€€We€can€andÏare€getting€on€with€the€job€of€meta„regulation€for€tax€system€integrity€(Braithwaite,€forthcoming).€ÏNumerous€companies€are€developing€the€sophistication€and€fairness€of€their€internal€justiceÏsystems€and€relying€more€heavily€on€restorative€justice.€€Standards€Australia€and€comparableÏorganizations€have€developed€Complaints€Handling€and€Compliance€System€standards€for€theÏprivate€sector€that€are€now€being€used€by€the€courts€and€by€regulators€€(Australian€CompetitionÏand€Consumer€Commission,€2003).€€€Parker€(1999,€p.€189)€suggests€following€the€example€ofÏthe€Australian€Affirmative€Action€Agency€strategy€of€paving€the€way€for€a€new€regime€ofÏenforced€self„regulation€by€persuading€lead€companies€to€trial€new€affirmative€action€programsÏthat€can€provide€models€for€companies€less€confident€of€tackling€a€new€access€to€justiceÏchallenge€(V.€Braithwaite€1993).€€So€her€idea€is€that€the€gradualist€path€to€more€radical€changeÏwould€involve€a€reforming€state€persuading€lead€companies€and€public€sector€bureaucracies€toÏdevelop€wide„ranging€access€to€justice€plans€appropriate€to€their€business.€€She€adduces€someÏpersuasive€empirical€evidence€that€this€would€not€be€so€difficult€to€do€because€it€is€in€fact€goodÏbusiness€to€give€superior€justice€to€customers€than€oneððs€competitors,€to€attract€ethical€investorsÏ(Margolis€and€Walsh,€2001;€Orlitzky,€Schmidt€and€Rynes,€2003),€to€hold€and€motivateÏexcellent€employees€by€treating€them€justly€and€to€be€able€to€restructure€in€response€to€changesÏin€a€competitive€environment€by€virtue€of€the€trust€one€has€built€through€just€policies,€to€be€ableÏto€keep€environmental€and€other€NGOs€at€bay€who€might€threaten€the€firmððs€legitimacy.€€ÌÌParker€believes€the€lead€firms€would€show€that€improving€justice€would€improve€business.€€InÏtime,€the€idea€of€mandating€access€to€justice€plans€would€not€seem€so€threatening€to€businessÏand€indeed€the€organizations€that€had€already€invested€in€them€would€press€for€others€to€beÐ —,'6 Ðrequired€to€do€so.€€In€many€domains€of€business€regulation,€such€as€environmental€regulationÏ(see€Porter€and€van€der€Linde€1995a,b,c)€we€have€seen€this€dynamic€now€ð!ð€new€forms€ofÏregulation€that€are€bitterly€resisted€by€most€business€are€embraced€by€the€innovative€few,€whoÏthen€demonstrate€them€to€be€good€for€business€in€sophisticated€markets.€€In€deploying€theirÏmanagement€creativity€to€deliver€the€desired€regulatory€outcome,€they€discover€innovative€waysÏof€doing€so€that€had€never€occurred€to€state€regulators.€€Parker€(1999,€p.€188)€notes€that€:Ïð ðLawyers€and€political€philosophers€are€disinclined€to€think€of€the€challenge€of€justice€as€aÏchallenge€of€management€creativity.ðð€€But€we€can€actually€get€on€with€the€task€of€creatingÏsimultaneously€more€efficient€and€just€strategies€of€guaranteeing€justice€by€talking€to€theÏinnovators€who€might€show€the€way€at€the€cutting€edge€(the€healing€edge)€of€the€organizationalÏsector€of€the€economy.€€In€addition,€we€can€educate€the€next€generation€of€business€andÏgovernmental€leaders€to€an€understanding€of€access€to€restorative€justice€by€giving€them€directÏexperience€of€participating€in€restorative€justice€programs€in€schools€that€work€in€dealing€withÏproblems€such€as€bullying€(Morrison,€forthcoming).€€This€step€is€also€now€being€taken€inÏthousands€of€schools€around€the€world.€ÌÌOur€argument€is€that€real€improvement€in€access€to€justice€requires€major€structural€change€toÏthe€legal€process€so€that€there€is€both€greatly€expanded€access€to€restorative€justice€and€greatlyÏexpanded€access€to€legal€aid€in€the€courts.€€The€idea€is€that€if€there€is€quality€in€how€theÏexpansion€of€informal€justice€is€done,€demand€upon€the€expanded€access€to€legal€aid€will€beÏmodest€and€affordable.€€Research€by€Blankenburg€(1994;€see€also€Parker€1999,€p.€77)Ïcomparing€litigation€in€the€Netherlands€and€the€neighbouring€German€state€of€Northrhine„¼Westphalia€shows€that€the€analysis€may€hold€up€even€when€the€revolutionary€structuralÏdifference€advocated€is€only€partially€in€place.€€The€Netherlands€has€much€greater€access€ofÏcitizens€to€legal€aid€than€Northrhine„Westphalia€and€more€activist€consumer€organizations€thatÏare€more€willing€to€pursue€legal€complaints.€€Yet€the€latter€has€a€litigation€rate€thirteen€to€twentyÏtimes€higher€than€in€the€Netherlands.€€After€eliminating€a€variety€of€other€possible€explanationsÏfor€this€difference€Blankenburg€concludes€that€people€litigate€less€in€the€Netherlands€evenÐ —,'6 Ðthough€it€is€easier€for€them€to€do€so€because€pre„court€ADR€is€much€more€satisfactorilyÏavailable€in€the€Netherlands.€€It€follows€that€while€radical€structural€change€to€the€legal€processÏis€advocated€in€this€essay,€this€is€not€a€case€where€no€positive€change€can€ever€occur€until€theÏfull€revolutionary€transformation€is€enacted.€€So€long€as€the€partial€change€is€structurallyÏsignificant,€there€is€every€reason€to€hope€that€the€partial€improvement€in€access€to€justice€will€beÏsignificant.€€€An€example€of€a€more€modest€reformism€that€might€be€a€stepping„stone€to€widerÏstructural€change€is€Hugh€Collinsððs€(1999:€353)€suggestion€of€voluntary€public€certification€ofÏcorporate€ADR€motivated€by€relief€from€the€courts€when€the€certification€requirements€wereÏhonoured.€€€€€€€€ÌÌThe€best€way€to€get€started€towards€transforming€the€legal€system€from€an€injustice€to€a€justiceÏsystem€is€to€participate€in€building€the€social€movements€that€we€have€found€to€be€crucial€toÏmaking€decent€transformation€possible.€€These€include€all€the€social€movements€with€an€agendaÏof€legal€advocacy,€of€public€interest€law,€to€ameliorate€the€dominations€less€powerful€actorsÏexperience€in€the€society€ð!ð€the€gay€and€lesbian€rights€movement,€Indigenous€rights,€consumer,Ïenvironmental,€animal€rights,€childrenððs€and€aged€care€advocacy,€the€womenððs€movement€andÏso€on.€€In€addition,€of€course€there€is€the€work€of€building€and€enriching€the€social€movement€forÏrestorative€justice€itself.€€ÌÌOne€interim€meta„regulatory€strategy€for€strengthening€anti„domination€NGOs€is€to€reconfigureÏethical€investment€or€social€responsibility€ratings€processes€away€from€technocratic€box„tickingÏand€toward€deliberative€NGO€assessments.€€Under€the€Reputex€ratings€€system,€an€NGO€likeÏGreenpeace€is€one€of€19€ð ðresearch€groupsðð€who€provide€social€responsibility€ratings€of€the€topÏ100€companies€operating€in€Australia€€on€a€variety€of€environmental€criteria€(ReputationÏMeasurement,€2003).Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òò òÚ  Ú7Ú  Úó…óó óÝ  Ý×  ×óó€€Others€like€Diversity@Work€and€trade€unions€rate€equal€employmentÐ 2((#0 Ðopportunity€€and€occupational€health€and€safety€criteria.€€Fifty€criteria€are€rated€by€19€groups,Ð ©)Ÿ$2 Ðmostly€NGOs,€though€some€like€the€Australian€Shareholdersðð€Association€and€the€AustralianÏInstitute€of€Management€are€rather€pro„business€NGOs.€The€ways€of€getting€started€with€meta„¼regulation€for€access€to€justice€are€many.€ÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÜÜŒXÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜü!?Ó€ÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿ¡<ice€ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ ÜÜŒXÜÜŒXÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& î ÔÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÀÍ »XXå˜ÔÔ€¼ÀÍ » »¼ÀÍÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,Ôò òÝ  ÝÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜X »¼ÀÍÔòòó óSummaryÔ j>ÔóóÐ æ Ü ÐÝ‚ÿÌ=ice€ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ'îæ Ü=ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌBraithwaite€(2002)€argues€that€the€late€twentieth€century€saw€a€rise€in€the€importance€of€ADRÏacross€the€legal€system€driven€by€quite€a€long€list€of€structural€shifts:ÌÓB.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àglobal€competition€with€national€court€systems€for€commercial€disputing€business€fromР¸  Ðarbitrators€and€mediatorsÐ 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àa€crisis€of€the€cost„efficiency€of€formal€legalism€in€managing€the€risks€of€time„spaceÐ °¦ Ðcompression€manifest€in€developments€such€as€derivatives€trading€across€the€globeÏ(space€compression)€that€accumulate€profits€or€losses€at€a€velocity€not€seen€beforeÏ(time€compression)€Ð 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àa€shift€toward€responsive€regulation€by€business€regulatory€agenciesÐŒ‚4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àa€privatization€of€security€and€compliance€auditing€in€ð ðrisk€societyðð€fostering€aÐ ù Ðprivatization€of€dispute€resolution€and€dispute€preventionÐ 4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àdeclining€citizen€trust€in€the€courts€and€lawyersÐñç"4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àthe€growth€of€mediation€as€a€quasi„profession,€and€Ðh^$4ü!4ü! Ðà0  àà04ü!ü!àà  àð"ðà 4 àpursuit€of€efficiency€via€the€new€case€management€by€the€courts€themselves.€€€Ðß Õ&4ü!4ü! ÐÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜ‚,Œ ŠXEÓÌThis€means€that€a€restorative€and€responsive€transformation€of€the€entire€legal€system€is€not€asÏutopian€as€it€first€seems;€it€goes€with€the€grain€of€these€structural€and€cultural€shifts€and€can€beÏdefended€in€the€neoliberal€discourses€that€are€dominant€at€the€end€of€the€millennium.€€Yet€it€isÏnot€clear€whether€the€growth€in€ADR€has€been€good€or€bad€from€the€perspective€of€restorativeÏjustice€values.€Informed€by€the€feminist€critique€of€ADR,€there€are€three€key€restorative€justiceÏconcerns:€the€domestication€of€injustice€as€conflict,€the€institutionalization€of€imbalance€of€powerÏand€the€privatization€of€what€should€be€matters€of€public€concern.€€On€the€latter€there€is€also€aÐ —,'6 Ðworry€about€the€expansion€of€public€coercion€into€domains€that€should€be€private€ð!ð€ADRÏnetwidening€for€juvenile€offenders,€video€cameras€in€workersðð€washrooms€to€detect€andÏconfront€drug€abuse.€ÌÌThe€moral€neutrality,€the€non„judgmentalism€of€mediation€professionalism€provides€it€with€noÏnormative€basis€for€concluding€what€should€be€private€issues€and€what€should€be€publicÏconcerns.€€Restorative€justice,€which€values€fairness€and€justice€rather€than€neutrality,€canÏdevelop€the€value€framework€for€deliberating€these€judgements€in€a€principled€way.€€Non„¼domination€and€deliberation€itself€seem€the€most€useful€values€for€guiding€what€should€be€publicÏor€private.€€Public€accountability€of€restorative€justice€in€terms€of€these€values€is€needed€toÏguard€against€the€domestication€of€injustice€as€mere€conflict€(Roche,€2003).€€While€restorativeÏjustice€values€reconciliation,€healing€and€forgiveness,€these€values€cannot€be€realised€through€Ïrestorative€injustice.€€€Truth€is€valued€before€reconciliation,€justice€before€healing,€responsibilityÏbefore€forgiveness.€ÌÌOf€course€non„domination€as€a€value€also€requires€restorative€justice€to€be€on€guard€againstÏimbalance€of€power.€€Braithwaite€(2002:€Chapter€5)€contends€that€restorative€justice€processesÏthat€engage€a€wide€plurality€of€stakeholders€in€the€circle€are€structurally€more€able€to€remedyÏimbalances€of€power€than€mediations€that€only€engage€two€principals€to€a€conflict€(see€alsoÏRoche,€2003).€€However,€the€more€fundamental€shift€needed€is€one€where€ADR€with€anÏimbalance€of€power€is€not€coerced€because€a€disputant€cannot€afford€a€lawyer.€€And€litigationÏthat€involves€an€imbalance€of€power€has€the€alternative€of€guaranteed€access€to€restorativeÏjustice,€preferably€to€competing€restorative€justice€models.€€The€deepest€source€of€theÏimbalance€of€power€in€our€contemporary€legal€system€is€that€the€rich€have€effective€access€toÏboth€litigation€and€ADR,€while€the€poor€are€forced€to€lump€one€or€the€other.€€The€IndigenousÏcriminal€defendant€is€forced€to€lump€the€white€manððs€court€(while€the€corporate€criminal€can€optÏfor€ADR).€€The€woman€in€a€family€law€dispute€is€forced€to€lump€ADR.€€The€structural€inequalityÏin€the€availability€of€options€means€that€a€wealthy€man€can€dominate€in€the€family€law€ADRÐ —,'6 Ðbecause€he€can€go€to€court€with€the€support€of€competent€counsel€and€his€wife€cannot;€theÏwhite„collar€criminal€can€get€criminal€proceedings€dropped€in€exchange€for€offers€ofÏcompensation€to€victims€and€organizational€reform;€the€unemployed€offender€cannot.€€AÏuniversal€guarantee€to€rich€and€poor€of€access€to€both€court€and€restorative€justice€for€anyÏserious€claim€of€injustice€seems€a€utopian€structural€shift.ÌÌParker€(1999)€has€shown€how€it€could€be€fiscally€possible.€€It€is€possible€because€in€lateÏmodernity€most€serious€disputes€involve€large€organizations€on€one€side€or€the€other.€€Hence,ÏParkerððs€idea€of€responsively€meta„regulating€large€organizations€to€continuously€improveÏaccess€to€justice€plans€would€cause€the€organizational€sector€of€the€economy€to€internalize€mostÏof€the€current€public€costs€of€civil€disputing.€€This€huge€cost€shift€would€increase€theÏcompetitiveness€of€economies€for€three€reasons.€€First,€most€of€the€internalization€of€the€costs€ofÏdisputing€in€a€risk€society€would€be€dealt€with€by€dispute€prevention€rather€than€by€disputeÏresolution.€€Second,€where€commercial€dispute€resolution€was€necessary,€it€would€be€rational€toÏinstitutionalize€win„win€restorative€justice€options€more€than€the€win„lose€and€lose„lose€optionsÏwhich€Heather€Strangððs€(2003)€research€suggests€to€be€more€common€in€adversarial€justice.€ÏThird,€courtroom€commercial€law€that€was€driven€by€the€need€to€solve€the€problems€thrown€upÏby€access€to€justice€plans€would€be€more€principle„based,€less€costly,€than€the€proliferation€ofÏcomplex€rules€driven€by€legalism.€€Because€thickets€of€rule€complexity€built€up€by€adversarialÏlegalism€ultimately€cause€a€collapse€in€the€certainty€of€commercial€law,€a€move€towardÏprinciple„based€law€ironically€increases€the€legal€certainty€required€for€efficient€capitalismÏ(Braithwaite,€forthcoming;€McBarnet€and€Whelan€1999;€Anderson€and€Kagan€2000).€€ÌÌMore€important€than€the€economic€efficiency€argument,€a€rule€of€law€that€grows€from€theÏimpulses€bubbled€up€from€the€restorative€justice€of€the€people,€a€legal€system€where€the€justiceÏof€the€law€has€a€conduit€for€filtering€down€to€the€justice€of€the€people€and€vice€versa,€will€be€aÏmore€democratic€rule€of€law€than€one€shaped€by€legal€entrepreneurs€who€work€only€in€theÏservice€of€the€rich€and€powerful€(Parker€1999).€€The€most€crucial€determinant€of€the€quality€ofÐ —,'6 Ðjustice€in€societies€is€neither€the€quality€of€their€state€justice€system€nor€the€quality€of€the€cultureÏof€justice€in€private€dispute€resolution;€it€is€the€relationship€between€the€two.€€When€citizens€areÏimbued€with€a€culture€of€justice€learned€in€part€from€a€principled€law€that€filters€down€to€themÏ(and€that€law€is€shaped€by€the€principles€that€bubble€up€from€their€indigenous€deliberation€ofÏdisputes),€when€weaknesses€of€indigenous€disputing€can€be€remedied€by€legal€enforcement€ofÏrights,€then€justice€has€the€deepest€meaning.€€It€is€not€that€the€ð ðbalanceðð€between€restorativeÏjustice€and€state€justice€has€been€got€right,€it€is€that€the€one€is€constantly€enriching€and€checkingÏthe€other.€€€€€€€ÌÌOnce€the€state€had€been€relieved€of€the€burden€of€funding€most€of€the€commercial€litigation€thatÏdominates€its€civil€dockets,€most€of€its€criminal€litigation€and€prison€beds,€it€would€have€theÏresources€to€guarantee€restorative€justice€to€all€individuals€who€want€it,€legal€aid€to€all€of€modestÏmeans€who€are€not€satisfied€with€their€restorative€justice.€€Corporate€access€to€justice€plansÏwould€also€have€saved€the€economy€the€resources€to€fund€an€access€to€justice€accreditationÏagency€to€hold€both€private€access€to€justice€plans€and€publicly€funded€restorative€justiceÏprograms€accountable€for€continuous€improvement€in€equality€of€access€to€superior€justice.€ÏAnnual€reports€would€be€debated€in€the€legislature€on€changes€in€the€patterns€of€injusticeÏrevealed€by€the€accreditation€agencyððs€oversight€of€the€private€and€public€provision€of€justice.€ÏThe€accountability€required€by€the€restorative€justice€value€of€non„domination€would€also€implyÏpublic€funding€for€advocacy€groups€to€monitor€the€accreditation€agency€and€directly€monitorÏjustice€providers€that€fail€to€guard€against€the€domination€of€the€groups€they€represent.€€WhileÏthis€is€a€radically€transformative€agenda,€all€its€elements€are€susceptible€to€incrementalÏdemocratic€experimentalism€(Dorf€and€Sabel,€1998).€€Moreover,€both€competitive€forces€andÏcollaborative€evidence„based€public€administration€can€be€harnessed€to€drive€innovation€inÏrestorative€and€responsive€justice.€€This€is€what€fuels€the€hope€and€the€vision€that€theÏimpoverished€ADR€on€our€horizon€today€might€be€richer€in€future€decades.€ÌÌÓ  ÓÐ —,'6 ÐREFERENCESÌÓ  ÓÌAnderson,€C.€Leigh€and€Robert€A.€Kagan.€2000.€ð ðAdversarial€Legalism€and€TransactionÏCosts:€The€Industrial€Flight€Hypothesis€Revisited.ðð€òòInternational€Review€of€Law€andÐ o e ÐEconomics€óó(20)1:€1„19Ð æ Ü ÐÌArgy,€S.€2003€òòMechanisms€for€Improving€the€Quality€of€Regulations:€Australia€in€anÐ Ô Ê  ÐInternational€Contextóó€.€Canberra:€Productivity€Commission.Ð KA  ÐÌAustralian€Competition€and€Consumer€Commission€2003.€òòGuidelines€for€DevelopingÐ 9/  ÐEffective€Voluntary€Industry€Codes:€Discussion€Paper.óó€€Canberra:€€Australian€CompetitionÐ °¦ Ðand€Consumer€Commission.€€€ÌÌAyres,€I.€and€J.€Braithwaite.€1992.òò€Responsive€Regulation:€Transcending€the€DeregulationÐ   ÐDebateóó.€New€York:€Oxford€University€Press.€Ð Œ‚ ÐÌBlankenburg,€E.€1994.€ð ðThe€Infrastructure€for€Avoiding€Civil€Litigation:€Comparing€Cultures€ofÏLegal€Behavior€in€the€Netherlands€and€West€Germany.ðð€òòLaw€and€Society€Reviewóó€28(4):€789„Ð ñç" Ð808.€ÌÒÜÒÌBraithwaite,€John.€1995.€ð ðCommunity€Values€and€Australian€Jurisprudence.ððòò€Sydney€LawÐ V"L( ÐReviewóó€17:€351„372.Ð Í#Ã* ÐÌBraithwaite,€John.€1998.€ð ðInstitutionalizing€Distrust,€Enculturating€Trust.ðð€In€òòTrust€andÐ »&±!. ÐGovernanceóó,€edited€by€V.€Braithwaite€and€M.€Levi.€New€York:€Russel€Sage€Foundation.Ð 2((#0 ÐÌBraithwaite,€John.€2000.€ð ðThe€New€Regulatory€State€and€the€Transformation€ofÏCriminology.ðð€òòBritish€Journal€of€Criminologyóó€40:€222„238.Ð —,'6 ЇBraithwaite,€John€2002€òòRestorative€Justice€and€Responsive€Regulationóó.€€New€York:Ð   ÐOxford€University€Press.€ÌÌBraithwaite,€John€forthcoming.€òòHelter€Shelter:€€Marketing€Local€and€Global€AggressiveÐ o e ÐTax€Planningóó.€Ð æ Ü ÐÌBraithwaite,€John€and€Christine€Parker.€1999.€ð ðRestorative€Justice€is€Republican€Justice.ððÏIn€òòRestoring€Juvenile€Justice:€An€Exploration€of€the€Restorative€Justice€Paradigm€forÐ KA  ÐReforming€Juvenile€Justiceóó,€edited€by€Lode€Walgrave€and€Gordon€Bazemore.€Monsey,Р¸  ÐNew€York:€Criminal€Justice€Press.ÌÌÒÜÒBraithwaite,€John€and€Philip€Pettit.€1990.òò€Not€Just€Deserts:€A€Republican€Theory€ofÐ ' ÐCriminal€Justiceóó.€Oxford:€Oxford€University€Press.Ð ž” ÐÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÜÜŒXÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜü!?ÓÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿ&4!* ÐUniversity€Press.ÌÌInglis,€M.,€ððWhy€we€Urgently€Need€a€Proper,€Working€Systemic€Model€for€the€AustralianÏFederal€Tax€Systemðð,€(September€2003)€Paper€to€Centre€for€Tax€System€Integrity,€AustralianÏNational€University,€CanberraÐ ‘-‡(4 ЇÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô[MõXXå˜ÔÔ€ô[Mõõô[MÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€Xå˜Xõô[MÔJordana,€J.€and€Levi„Faur,€D.€ððThe€Rise€of€the€Regulatory€State€in€Latin€America:€A€Study€ofÐ   Ðthe€Diffusion€of€Regulatory€Reforms€Across€Countries€and€Sectorsðð,€Paper€to€the€AnnualÏMeeting€of€the€American€Political€Science€Association,€August€28„September€2,€2003.ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿyxong€ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÔ€Xå˜XXXå˜ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌLoughlin,€M.€and€C.€Scott.€1997.€ð ðThe€Regulatory€State.ðð€In€òòDevelopments€in€British€PoliticsÐ æ Ü Ð5óó,€edited€by€P.€Dunlevy,€I.€Holliday€and€G.€Peele.€London:€Macmillan.Ð ] S  ÐÌMacaulay,€S.€1963.€ð ðNon„Contractual€Relations€in€Business:€A€Preliminary€Study.ðð€òòAmericanÐ KA  ÐSociological€Reviewóó€28:€55„69.Р¸  ÐÌMcBarnet,€Doreen€and€Christopher€Whelan.€1999.€òòCreative€Accounting€and€the€Cross„Ð °¦ ÐEyed€Javelin€Throweróó.€Chichester:€Wiley.€€Ð ' ÐÒÜÒÌÒÜÒMajone,€G.€1994.€ð ðThe€Rise€of€the€Regulatory€State€in€Europeòòðð,€West€European€Politicsóó€17:Ð   Ð77„101.€ÌÌMargolis,€J.D.€and€J.D,€Walsh€2001.€òòPeople€and€Profits?€The€Search€for€a€Link€Between€aÐ zp  ÐCompanyððs€Social€and€Financial€Performanceóó.€New€Jersey:€Erlbaum.Ð ñç" ÐÌMorgan,€Bronwen€2002òò.€Social€Citizenship€in€the€Shadow€of€Competition:€TheÐ ß Õ& ÐBureaucratic€Politics€of€Regulatory€Justificationóó.€Aldershot:€Ashgate.€Ð V"L( ÐÌMorrison,€Brenda€2001.€ð ðAffect,€Identity€and€the€Self:€A€Field€Theory€of€Restorative€Process.ððÏManuscript€held€at€the€Centre€for€Restorative€Justice,€Australian€National€University.€ÌÌMorrison,€Brenda€2003.€òòFrom€Bullying€to€Responsible€Citizenship:€A€RestorativeÐ ©)Ÿ$2 ÐApproach€to€Building€Safe€School€Communitiesóó.€€Sydney:€Federation€Press.€Ð  +&4 ÐÐ —,'6 ÐNonet,€Philippe€and€Philip€Selznick€1978òò.€Law€and€Society€in€Transition:€TowardÐ   ÐResponsive€Lawóó.€New€York:€Harper€Torchbooks.€Ð w ÐÌOrlitzky,€M.,€F.L.€Schmidt€and€S.€L.€Rynes€2003.€ð ðCorporate€Social€and€FinancialÏPerformance:€A€Meta„Analysisðð.€òòOrganization€Studiesóó€24:€403„441.€Ð æ Ü ÐÌOsborne,€D.€and€T.€Gaebler.€1992.€òòReinventing€Government:€How€the€EntrepreneurialÐ Ô Ê  ÐSpirit€is€Transforming€the€Public€Sectoróó.€Reading,€Mass:€Addison„Wesley.Ð KA  ÐòòóóÌParker,€Christine.€1999.€òòJust€Lawyersóó.€Oxford:€Oxford€University€Press.Ð 9/  ÐÌParker,€Christine€2002.€òòThe€Open€Corporationóó.€€Melbourne€:€Cambridge€University€Press.€Ð ' ÐÌParker,€Christine,€Scott,€Colin,€Lacey,€Nicola€and€John€Braithwaite€(eds)€2004.€€òòRegulatingÐ   ÐLawóó.€€Oxford:€Oxford€University€Press.€Ð Œ‚ ÐÌPettit,€P.€1997.€òòRepublicanismóó.€Oxford:€Clarendon€Press.Ð zp  ÐÌPorter,€Michael.€1990.€òòThe€Competitive€Advantage€of€Nationsóó.€New€York:€Macmillan.€Ð h^$ ÐÌPorter,€Michael€and€Claas€van€der€Linde.€1995a.€ð ðGreen€òòandóó€Competitive:€Ending€theÐ V"L( ÐStalemate.ðð€òòHarvard€Business€Reviewóó€September„October:€120„134.€Ð Í#Ã* ÐÌPorter,€Michael€and€Claas€van€der€Linde.€1995b.€ð ðReply€to€Portneyððs€Critique€of€Porter€andÏvan€der€Linde€(1995)€ððGreen€òòandóó€Competitive:€Ending€the€Stalemate.ððððòò€Harvard€BusinessÐ 2((#0 ÐReviewóó€November„December:€206„208.Ð ©)Ÿ$2 ÐÌPorter,€Michael€and€Claas€van€der€Linde.€1995c.€ð ðToward€a€New€Conception€of€theÐ —,'6 ÐEnvironment„Competitiveness€Relationship.ðð€òòJournal€of€Economic€Perspectivesóó€9(4):€98„Ð   Ð118.ÌÌPoulson,€Barton€2003.€ð ðA€Third€Voice:€A€Review€of€Empirical€Research€on€the€PsychologicalÏOutcomes€of€Restorative€Justiceðð.òò€Utah€Law€Reviewóó€2003(1):€167„204.Ð æ Ü ÐÌÓ€ÓRoche,€Declan€2003.€òòAccountability€in€Restorative€Justiceóó.€Oxford:€Oxford€UniversityÐ Ô Ê  ÐPress.€€ÌÌReputation€Measurement€2003.€€òòRepuTex€Report€2003óó.€Melbourne:€Reputation€Measurement.€Ð ¸  ÐÌÌSelznick,€Philip€1992.€òòThe€Moral€Commonwealth:€Social€Theory€and€the€Promise€ofÐ °¦ ÐCommunityóó.€Berkeley:€University€of€California€Press.€Ð ª  ÐÌÓ€ÓSigler,€Jay€A.€and€Joseph€E.€Murphy.€1988.€òòInteractive€Corporate€Compliance:€AnÐ ž” ÐAlternative€to€Regulatory€Compulsionóó.€New€York:€Quorum€Books.€Ð   ÐÌStrang,€Heather€2002.€òòRepair€or€Revenge:€Victims€and€Restorative€Justiceóó.€Oxford:€OxfordÐ ù ÐUniversity€Press.ÌÌStrang,€Heather€and€Lawrence€W.€Sherman€2003.€ð ðRepairing€the€Harm:€Victims€andÏRestorative€Justiceðð€òòUtah€Law€Reviewóó€2003(1):€15„42.€Ð ß Õ# ÐÌSutton,€Adam€and€Ron€Wild€1978.€ð ðCorporate€Crime€and€Social€Structure.ðð€In€P.R.€WilsonÏand€J.€Braithwaite€(eds)€òòTwo€Faces€of€Deviance:€Crimes€of€the€Powerless€and€Powerfulóó.Ð D%: ) ÐBrisbane:€University€of€Queensland€Press.€€ÌÌTeubner,€Gunther.€1983.€ð ðSubstantive€and€Reflexive€Elements€in€Modern€Lawòò.ðð€Law€andÐ ©)Ÿ$/ ÐSociety€Review€óó17:€256.€Ð  +&1 ÐÐ —,'3 ÐTyler,€Tom.€1990.€òòWhy€People€Obey€the€Lawóó.€New€Haven,€CT:€Yale€University€Press.€Ð   ÐÌTyler,€Tom€and€Steven€Blader.€2000.€òòCooperation€in€Groups:€Procedural€Justice,€SocialÐ øî ÐIdentity,€and€Behavioral€Engagementóó.€Philadelphia,€PA:€Psychology€Press.€Ð o e ÐÌTyler,€Tom€and€Robyn€M.€Dawes.€1993.€ð ðFairness€in€Groups:€Comparing€the€Self„Interest€andÏSocial€Identity€Perspectives.ðð€In€òòPsychological€Perspectives€on€Justice:€Theory€andÐ Ô Ê  ÐApplicationsóó,€edited€by€Barbara€A.€Mellers€and€Jonathan€Baron.€Cambridge:€CambridgeÐ KA  ÐUniversity€Press.€ÌÌTyler,€Tom€and€Yuen€J.€Huo€2001.€òòTrust€and€the€Rule€of€Law:€A€Law„Abidingness€ModelÐ °¦ Ðof€Social€Controlóó.€€€New€York:€Russel€Sage.€Ð ' ÐÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÜÜŒXÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔOZUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜü!?ÓÌÝ‚ ÿÿÿt‘ong€ÝÔUS.,OZ.,ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ ÜÜŒXÜÜŒXÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝWeber,€Max€1954.€òòOn€Law€in€Economy€and€Societyóó.€New€York:€Clarion.€Ð   ÐÌÓ€ÓWenzel,€M.€2002.€ð ðThe€impact€of€outcome€orientation€and€justice€concerns€on€tax€compliance:ÏThe€role€of€taxpayers'€identity.ðð€òòJournal€of€Applied€Psychologyóó€òò€8:óó€629„645.Ð ýó ÐÓ€ÓÌWenzel,€M.€(in€press).€ð ðSocial€identification€as€a€determinant€of€concerns€about€individual,Ïgroup,€and€inclusive„level€justice.ðð€òòSocial€Psychology€Quarterlyóó.Ð åÛ$ ÐÌWenzel,€M.€2003.€Tax€compliance€and€the€psychology€of€justice:€Mapping€the€field.€In€V.ÏBraithwaite€(Ed.),€òòTaxing€democracy:€Understanding€tax€avoidance€and€evasionóó.Ð J$@* ÐAldershot,€UK:€Ashgate€Publishing€Limited.ÌÌZehr,€Howard.€1995.€òòChanging€Lenses:€A€New€Focus€for€Criminal€Justiceóó.€Scottsdale,€PA:Ð ¯(¥#0 ÐHerald€Press.