Professor Nael Bunni:

I would answer that question by inviting the Deputy to read a paper published in the centenary magazine of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The institute was 100 years old this year and for its festivities it asked various people from around the world to submit papers on the very question the Deputy asked. I was asked to give a copy of my paper for the journal in a light-hearted form.

These were published and I will make sure the committee receives a copy. This will explain, in a way, that conflict in the world has started for the very simple reason that we have language. It is a very difficult thing to master. I could say the same words in two different manners and mean totally different things. I could say "I wish him to survive" or "I wish to survive him." The sentences use exactly the same words, put in different places, and the meaning is totally different. In answer to the question, our problem with language results in our problems with disputes. We say things, hoping to be comprehensive, but it never works that way. The problem of disputes exists everywhere in the world. The problem of having to solve these disputes varies from one country, jurisdiction or legal system to another. In Parliament, one has to concentrate on what system of law exists because, ultimately, to resolve a dispute involves a legal process. It could be a non-legal process if the parties agreed to sit down and mediate or conciliate, but once one moves away from mediation, conciliation or simply discussing the matter, then it is a legal process. That legal process fits into one of three systems of law in the world today, including the common law system, which Ireland, England, America and Australia use, or civil law, which deals with the issue quite differently and operates in Europe, some parts of the Middle East and some parts of Asia. Countries with Islamic law deal with the issue completely differently. The question needs to be isolated into three different parts, so one can then see how things work around the world.

Having done this, unfortunately, one still comes to the same methods for which Senator Quinn asked at the beginning of the meeting. He asked how they compared. I was part of the committee in the Institution of Civil Engineers in London when the British decided to introduce adjudication. We had internal discussions and were invited to contribute. The system developed in England was designed to move from arbitration to adjudication, despite the fact that conciliation had been born there. It developed extremely well in the UK. Europe never went that way and never touched on adjudication, and people think more in terms of arbitration as the final or long-term solution because, as I said in my answer to Senator Quinn, it is probably the most comprehensive and fair way of dealing with the problem. It takes a long time and costs a lot more, but it is the best way. That is where Europe has gone.

One finds under Islamic law that conciliation takes place. In fact, it is written in the Koran, the holy book of Islam, that if one has a problem, one should try to conciliate, and it tells one how to do so. It says that one person must be brought in from one side and one from the other, and that they must sit down and come to a solution. It is a very wide subject, but I will make sure the committee receives a copy of my paper.