Mediation rules as an instrument for organizing court-connected mediation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.171.341945Keywords:
mediation, court-connected mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), access to justiceAbstract
The article examines the content and functions of mediation rules as a key instrument for structuring court-connected mediation. It argues that, while legislative regulation of mediation is generally framework-based—focused on fundamental principles, mediator qualifications, and guarantees of confidentiality—the mediation rules themselves play a decisive role in ensuring procedural justice, predictability, and legitimacy of the process. The study’s methodological foundation combines the concept of procedural justice with approaches from general legal theory, viewing rules as institutional mechanisms for securing due process within flexible procedures.
The empirical basis of the research includes the UNCITRAL Mediation Rules and the mediation rules of leading institutions (ICC, WIPO, CEDR), as well as court-connected mediation rules in Italy and the United States. Comparative analysis identified common structural elements of mediation rules (initiation, appointment of mediator, confidentiality, termination, and fees) and specific features of the court-connected model—namely, a higher level of procedural detail, regulation of communication between the court and the mediator, requirements for party and representative participation, the existence of official registers of mediators and mediation centers, and an established system of reporting and quality control.
The study demonstrates that the detailed nature of court-connected mediation rules does not constrain procedural flexibility; rather, it serves as a means of realizing their guarantee, legitimizing, coordinating, and informational functions. Such rules ensure a balance between party autonomy and procedural rigor, strengthen judicial and party confidence in mediation, and contribute to the quality and reliability of mediation services. The findings confirm the hypothesis that mediation rules within court-connected mediation possess distinctive features shaped by their alignment with procedural norms of judicial proceedings.
References
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Dispute Settlement & State Justice Institute. (1992). National standards for court-connected mediation programs. Washington, DC: State Justice Institute.
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. (2019). CEDR code of conduct for third party neutrals. London, UK: Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. Retrieved from https://www.cedr.com/code
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. (2023). CEDR model mediation procedure. London, UK: Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. Retrieved from https://www.cedr.com/model-mediation-procedure
Deborah R. Hensler. (2002). Suppose it’s not true: Challenging mediation ideology. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2002(1), 81–108.
Deason, E. E. (2005). Procedural rules for complementary systems of litigation and mediation worldwide. Notre Dame Law Review, 80(2), 553–592.
Decreto legislativo 4 marzo 2010, n. 28, Attuazione dell’articolo 60 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69, in materia di mediazione finalizzata alla conciliazione delle controversie civili e commerciali. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 53, 5 March 2010.
Decreto ministeriale 24 ottobre 2023, n. 150, Regolamento recante la determinazione dei criteri e delle modalità di iscrizione e tenuta del registro degli organismi di mediazione e dell’elenco degli enti di formazione. Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale n. 255, 31 October 2023.
Fiss, O. M. (1984). Against settlement. Yale Law Journal, 93(6), 1073–1090.
Fuller, L. L. (1964). The morality of law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
International Chamber of Commerce. (2014). ICC mediation rules. Paris, France: International Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved from https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/mediation/rules
Judicial Council of California. (n.d.). California rules of court: Title 3—Civil rules. Sacramento, CA: California Courts. Retrieved from https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/three
Judicial Council of California. (n.d.). Rule 3.857. Quality of mediation process. In California Rules of Court: Title 3—Civil Rules. Sacramento, CA: California Courts. Retrieved from https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/three/rule3_857
Комаров, В.В., Цувіна , Т.А.(2021). Міжнародний стандарт доступності правосуддя і предмет цивільного процесуального права. Журнал Національної академії юридичних наук України, 28(3), 197-208
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Springer.
Linnanmäki, K. (2021). Mediation: A change in Finnish court culture? In L. Ervo, P. Letto-Vanamo, & A. Nylund (Eds.), Rethinking Nordic courts (Vol. 90, pp. 239–256). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74851-7_13
Lyngstad, E. C., & Skjesol, I. (2025). Professional perspectives on characteristics of legitimacy in court-based mediation. Family Court Review, 63(1), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12838
Matteucci, A. (2024, February 29). Civil and commercial mediation in Italy after the “Riforma Cartabia”: A summary [PDF]. Mediate.com. Retrieved from https://mediate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ADR-Matteucci-2024.02.29-Civil-and-commercial-mediation-in-Italy-after-the-Riforma-Cartabia-A-summary.docx.pdf
Мазаракі Н.А. (2018). Медіація як доступ до справедливості. Актуальні проблеми вітчизняної юриспруденції, 6(7), 23–27.
Ministero della Giustizia. (n.d.). Registro degli organismi di mediazione (albo ufficiale). Retrieved from https://mediazione.giustizia.it/ROM/ALBOORGANISMIMEDIAZIONE.aspx
Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88(5), 950–997.
Nolan-Haley, J. (2015). Mediation and access to justice in Africa: Perspectives from Ghana. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 21, 59–104. Retrieved from https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hnlr/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/HNR102_crop-1.pdf
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitz, S. J. (2005). Critique of the Illinois circuit rules concerning court-ordered mediation. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 36(3), 783–818.
Stienstra, D. (2011). ADR in the federal district courts: An initial report. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved from http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/adr2011.pdf/$file/adr2011.pdf
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tsuvina, T., Ferz, S., Tvaronaviciene, A., & Riener, P. (2023). The implementation of the consensual tenet in modern civil procedure: A European approach to court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023(1), 5–25.
Tvaronavičienė, A., Kaminskienė, N., Rone, D., & Uudeküll, R. (2022). Mediation in the Baltic States: Developments and challenges of implementation. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4(16), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-5.4-a000427
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 283–357). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2007). Psychology and the design of legal institutions. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2021). UNCITRAL mediation rules (2021). New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation
UN Commission on International Trade Law. (2021). Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its fifty-fourth session (Vienna, 28 June–16 July 2021). UN Doc A/76/17, ch. II, annex III: UNCITRAL Mediation Rules.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. (n.d.). Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) local rules. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Courts. Retrieved from https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/local-rules/adr-local-rules
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. (2022). Mediation program procedures. New York, NY: U.S. Courts. Retrieved from https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/Mediation/Mediation%20Rules%20and%20Procedures/Mediation%20Program%20Procedures%202022_0.pdf
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2022). UNCITRAL mediation rules (2021). New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation
Welsh, N. A. (2001). Making deals in court-connected mediation: What’s justice got to do with it? Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2001(1), 117–194. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=jdr
Welsh, N. A. (2020). Bringing transparency and accountability (with a dash of morality) to court-connected ADR data: The need for systematically collected, publicly shared, anonymized data regarding court-connected mediation. Fordham Law Review, 88(6), 2281–2308. Retrieved from https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Welsh_May_S_14.pdf
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). WIPO mediation rules. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Наталія Мазаракі, Лариса Нескороджана
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
