The mediation movement in Singapore was actively revived in the 1990s. Currently, mediation is not only used for private disputes but forms an integral part of the Singapore legal system. It is widely used as a mechanism of dispute resolution in courts, government departments, businesses and other specific industries.
The implementation of the Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters has triggered interest in the concept of mediation in the Czech Republic that has no long tradition of mediation in civil and commercial disputes to build on. Since the adoption of Mediation Act in 2012, apart from arbitration, mediation is the only form of ADR that is regulated by special legislation; however the Mediation Act regulates exclusively mediation carried out by mediators that are registered with the Czech Ministry of Justice. Mediation is voluntary; if considered efficient and adequate, it is at the discretion of the court to order the parties to meet with a mediator for a three-hour informative session. Pursuant to the Mediation Act mediation commences upon the execution of Mediation Agreement and if successful, it results in the conclusion of Mediation Accord expressing the will of all the parties that are ready to voluntarily fulfil their obligations thereof. Under the Czech Mediation Act, Mediation Accords are not directly enforceable.
Mediation is one of the most frequently used alternative dispute resolution processes worldwide. Mediation provides faster, cheaper, and better solutions than a traditional court decision can. Benefits are important for individuals as well as for disputing businesses from the private sector and for public sector institutions. Understanding the principles, process, and skills of mediation is essential for anyone whose professional role involves managing disputes of any kind. Mediation Essentials comprises five chapters as follows: 1) Chapter 1 is about How to Manage and Control Disputes and Alternative Dispute Resolution; Chapter 2 describes on How to Make the Most of Mediation; Chapter 3 discusses on How Professional Advisors Can Add Value to Mediation; Chapter 4 explains on How to Use Guiding Principles and Ethics to Ensure the Integrity of Mediation; and Chapter 5 concludes with How to Draft Contractual Documents for Mediation.
Mediation was introduced in Russia in 2010 but its implementation is still hampered by controversies over the use of mediation terminology (MT) borrowed from English. This study presents the results of a joint research initiated by a group of linguists and specialists developing legal standards for mediation in Russia to bring into the foreground the study of mediation terminology and to suggest directions for its systematization. The research uses structural and semantic analysis building a model of source language terminology (English) based on the terminological evidence of 2263 units to elaborate standards which could be applied to Russian MT. Besides, the results of the Nuclear-Peripheral analysis (that ensures translation equivalence by preserving nuclear area of semantics in both languages) laid the basis for MT Translation Project that suggested strategies for translating the collected terms into Russian. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6p302
The article deals with the concepts associated with mediation and bankruptcy in our state. Also studied the historical aspects of the creation of mediation in other countries, and specifically on the example of the United States. The issues of failures in the interaction of bankruptcy and pre-trial resolution (mediation) were raised. Considered federal laws and their gaps in this direction of study. The concept of an arbitration manager and the purpose of his appointment as a whole are studied. An analysis of a new way of conflict resolution is being conducted — mediation, with traditional analysis of conflict resolution in a judicial order, because the traditional way is less effective and costlier in this area. We propose in this article the introduction of compulsory permission through mediation, which should, in our opinion, bring justice to a new direction, which will effectively carry out its tasks and relieve the judicial instances. We also analyzed the bankruptcy and cooperation of mediation with this trend in general. The fact that they can be combined, and this will greatly affect the relaxation of the judicial system. We propose to consider these issues at the legislative, mandatory level and come to common opinion.
The Mediation Act 2016 was recently passed by the Singapore Parliament and is soon to come into operation. This legislative comment compares the Act's key provisions to the common law principles concerning confidentiality and admissibility, enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and stay of proceedings pending mediation. It argues that the Act has refined the common law in certain areas, but has brought about greater uncertainty in other aspects. It also discusses how the major provisions are likely to be applied by the court in light of similar developments in other jurisdictions.
This paper brings mechanism design to the study of conflict resolution in international relations. We determine when and how unmediated communication and mediation reduce the ex ante probability of conflict, in a simple game where conflict is due to asymmetric information. Unmediated communication helps reducing the chance of conflict as it allows conflicting parties to reveal their types and establish type-dependent transfers to avoid conflict. Mediation improves upon unmediated communication when the intensity of conflict is high, or when asymmetric information is large. The mediator improves upon unmediated communication by not precisely reporting information to conflicting parties, and precisely, by not revealing to a player with probability one that the opponent is weak. Surprisingly, in our set up, arbitrators who can enforce settlements are no more effective in reducing the probability of conflict than mediators who can only make non-binding recommendations.
This is a short monograph that summarizes a series of meetings of the Mediation Support Network (MSN), a network of primarily non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that support mediation in peace negotiations. Specifically, MSN members discussed and reflected on the "UN Guidance for Effective Mediation" and specifically focused on how to translate the UN Guidance into practice. Rather than being a comprehensive commentary, this document therefore focuses on certain issues and cases that seem pertinent from the MSN perspective. The discussions focused on numerous case studies that illustrate the challenges of mediation, and how they were dealt with. The aim of these case studies – some of them specifically focusing on the NGO role in mediation – is to help translate the UN Guidance into effective practice. A few key themes about mediation were featured: preparedness; consent; impartiality; inclusivity; national ownership; international law and a normative framework; coherence, coordination, and complementarity; and quality peace agreements. Conclusions included the need for mediation to be professionalized and that careful analysis is needed before any mediation action. Such analysis and strategizing requires the long-term development of institutional and human capacity. There is a strong and legitimate call for making mediation processes more inclusive, with regard to the inclusion of a range of actors (e.g., marginalized groups, women, religious actors, etc.) and with regard to the content of a peace agreement. However, mediators often face pressure to reach a minimum agreement quickly, especially when hostilities are ongoing. This can make it particularly difficult to reach more inclusive, and thus more complex, agreements. Inclusivity also entails efforts, outside the formal mediation process, to support dialogue between actors, so that they can better influence formal processes and sustain peace agreements once they are signed. Coordination of mediators benefits from the inclusion of civil society: Local ...
Mediation currently plays a minor role in the Irish family justice system, yet a policy consensus exists that more couples should be encouraged to mediate and that increased rates of mediation will reduce the numbers seeking redress through the courts. The recently published Mediation Act 2017 adopts this position, assuming that the provision of information on mediation will increase uptake and that mediation offers an alternative to litigation for most civil disputes. This article reviews attempts in Ireland, England and Wales to encourage family disputants to mediate, identifying weaknesses in the information strategy. It also examines the legal framework governing all-issues divorce and dissolution in Ireland, pointing to the limited potential for mediation to act as an alternative to litigation. It concludes by arguing that policy focus must shift away from encouraging mediation as an alternative to litigation toward a more nuanced understanding of mediation as a support to court based dispute resolution.
Mediation continues to be an ever-growing faction of the legal community with the introduction of more legislation requiring parties to attempt to solve disputes outside of the courtroom. While it is generally accepted that mediation is a confidential process, the rules of confidentiality in Australia and internationally are not so black and white. This paper is broken into four sections to determine why there is a need for confidentiality, when disclosure is required by law and what the general rules of confidentiality are in relation to mediators, mediation, and legal practitioners in Australia as well as an international comparison with the United States of America. Ultimately, through the extrapolation of these topics, it will be shown that while the current rules of confidentiality attempt to equally protect the rights of all parties, this often results in an individual's access to justice being inhibited.
Der gesetzliche Rechtsrahmen der Mediation in Rumänien und in Österreich hat im Vergleich wesentliche Gemeinsamkeiten, jedoch sind Unterschiede in den Details bemerkbar. In Österreich hat die Mediation mit der Einführung des ZivMediatG in 2004 tiefe Wurzeln gefasst, während in Rumänien das Mediationsgesetz erst 2008 in Kraft getreten ist. Die Mediation hat als außergerichtliche Streitbeilegungsform in beiden Ländern die Hauptfunktion soziale Beziehungen unter Einhaltung der mediationsspezifischen Prinzipien wiederherzustellen. Dafür nimmt der österreichische Gesetzgeber von einer umfangreichen Bestimmung im österreichischen ZivMediatG Abstand. Der rumänische Gesetzgeber hingegen regelt die Mediation detailliert, lässt aber auch Raum für eine Weiterentwicklung. Beide Gesetze beinhalten Regelungen bezüglich der Definition der Mediation, der Prinzipien, der Institutionen, der Pflichten und Rechte des Mediators sowie der Handhabung einer Mediation im Rahmen eines Zivilprozesses. Das rumänische Mediationsgesetz umfasst einen größeren Rechtsbereich, in dem die Mediation anwendbar ist. Das österreichische ZivMediatG beschränkt sich auf das Zivilrecht und definiert innerhalb dieser Grenze die Mediation und ihre Durchführung. Auch bei der praktischen Umsetzung zeigen sich wesentliche Unterschiede, da in Rumänien diese Form der Streitregelung wenig Aufmerksamkeit bekommt, obwohl der Gesetzgeber viele Anstrengungen gemacht hat um sie der Bevölkerung näherzubringen. ; The legal framework of mediation in Austria and in Romania has in comparison fundamental similarities, however the details imply differences. In Austria the mediation took with the introduction in 2004 deep roots, whereas in Romania the law of mediation entered into force in 2008. The mediation has as an extrajudicial form of alternative dispute resolution in both countries the main function to restore social relations in strict compliance with the specific principals of mediation. Therefor the Austrian legislator refrained from an extensive regulation in the Austrian mediation law. The Romanian legislator however structured the mediation more detailed, but left also space for further development. Both laws contain regulations about the definition of mediation, the principles, the institutions, the duties and rights of the mediator and the realization of a mediation within a litigation. The Romanian mediation law covers a wider field of law, where the mediation is applicable. The Austrian mediation law restrains to the civil law and defines the mediation and its execution within this limit. In addition to that the implementation shows major differences, because in Romania this form of alternative dispute resolution gets only little attention, although the legislator is making great efforts to familiarize it with the population. ; vorgelegt von Adela Dib ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung des Verfassers/der Verfasserin ; Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Diplomarbeit, 2019 ; (VLID)5912128
An Australian report on mediation in planning disputes (known as the Keaney Report) givesa useful definition:An understanding by parties to a dispute to enter into discussions so that those parties, with the assistance of two impartial persons, can agree to resolve the dispute themselves. It is a voluntary system and entirely 'without prejudice'. If a party decides to withdraw from mediation and go to another forum they are entirely free to do so. No rights are forfeited by choosing mediation as an option. The process is entirely confidential.There are a number of things to note about this definition. The first is that mediation is voluntary; I do not think that in any country mediation is forced upon parties, and I do not think it would work if parties did not take part of their own volition.
Das Buch befasst sich mit Konfliktbearbeitungsverfahren, die ganz oder teilweise computergestützt ablaufen. Dabei wird Online-Mediation als sozio-technisches System aufgefasst, weil die computertechnische Plattform und die konfliktbezogenen sozialen Kommunikationsprozesse ineinander greifen. Der erste Teil des Buches behandelt allgemein die Optionen und Restriktionen der Online-Kommunikation in Moderations- und Mediationsprozessen. Ein Vorteil der Online-Mediation liegt etwa darin, dass räumlich getrennte Parteien (z.B. im internationalen Online-Handel) sich mit vergleichsweise geringem Aufwand einig werden können. Der zweite Teil berichtet über politik- und wirtschaftsbezogene Anwendungserfahrungen. Online-Mediation wird als zukunftsträchtiges Verfahren mit wachsender Nachfrage vorgestellt, das aber noch mit zahlreichen sozio-technischen Problemen behaftet ist und somit starken Forschungs- und Entwicklungsbedarf in sich birgt. Der Sammelband liefert mit Fallstudien einen informativen Überblick und konzentriert sich dabei auf den deutschsprachigen Raum. Ein systematischer Vergleich der verschiedenen Online-Mediations-Tools und -Techniken fehlt jedoch ebenso wie eine Beschäftigung mit ökonomischen und berufspraktischen Fragen in diesem neuen Tätigkeitsfeld. ; Online-Mediation deals with conflict resolution methods that are carried out partially or completely online. The book analyses online mediation as a socio-technical system through the means of the computer-based technological platform deeply interwoven with conflict-related social communication. The first part of the book discusses the multiple options and restrictions of online communication in moderation and mediation processes. For example, one advantage of online mediation is that geographically separated parties (e.g. in e-commerce settings) can resolve conflicts at comparatively low cost. The second part of the book reports online mediation examples from politics and industry. Although online mediation is described as a seminal method increasingly requested, several socio-technical problems need to be addressed by further research. The book provides an informative view of the subject, focusing on the German-speaking countries. Unfortunately, it lacks a systematic comparison of different online mediation tools and techniques as well as a closer look at the business models and professional issues in this new field of activity.
Discusses the common law protection afforded to mediation negotiations by the without prejudice rule, legal professional privilege and the mediation agreement signed by all parties prior to the commencement of the mediation process. Examines the inclusion of admissions within the without prejudice rule, and the exceptions to the rule. Notes two pieces of legislation offering protection, namely the US Uniform Mediation Act 2001 and Directive 2008/52. Argues that the limited protection in the UK provides a case for the introduction of legislation on mediation privilege. ; postprint