Legal Mechanisms for the Application of Mediation in the Enforcement Stage of Judicial Acts in Foreign States: A Comparative Legal Analysis
Keywords:
Post-judgment mediation, enforcement stage, legal mechanism, enforcement effectiveness, institutions for reaching agreement, comparative law, foreign experience.Abstract
This article is devoted to the comparative-legal analysis of the legal mechanisms for applying mediation in the enforcement stage of judicial acts in the legal systems of foreign states — the European Union, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, and Japan — on the basis of comparative-legal methodology. The concept of 'post-judgment mediation', the institutions for reaching agreement in enforcement proceedings, and the empirical impact of mediation on enforcement effectiveness are studied in detail. The article concludes with a theoretical model summarising foreign experience and practical recommendations.
References
References
1. Act on Promotion of Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Act No. 151 of 2004), Japan, enforced from 1 April 2007.
2. Amrani-Mekki, S. "La médiation judiciaire." Revue de l'arbitrage, 2018, n°3, pp. 783–820.
3. Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). CEDR Mediation Audit 2021. London: CEDR, 2021.
4. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132), Part 36, as amended by SI 2023/572.
5. Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.
6. Code de procédure civile français, Articles 131-1 à 131-15, modifiés par Décret n°2022-245 du 25 février 2022.
7. Council of Europe, CEPEJ. European Judicial Systems — Efficiency and Quality of Justice. CEPEJ Studies No. 26, 2022 Edition.
8. Council of Europe, CEPEJ. Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States. Strasbourg, 2020.
9. Décret n°2017-1457 du 9 octobre 2017 relatif à la liste des médiateurs auprès des cours d'appel, JORF n°0241.
10. Decreto Legislativo 4 marzo 2010, n. 28 (Mediazione civile e commerciale), Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 53 del 5 marzo 2010.
11. Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008. OJ L 136, 24.05.2008.
12. Duve, C., Eidenmüller, H. & Hacke, A. Mediation in der Wirtschaft. 2. Aufl. Köln: Luchterhand, 2011.
13. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 69, 28 U.S.C. Appendix, amended December 1, 2023.
14. Green, E.D. "A Heretical View of the Mediation Privilege." Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1986.
15. Greger, R. & Unberath, H. MediationsG: Kommentar. C.H. Beck Verlag, München, 2012.
16. Hopt, K.J. & Steffek, F. (eds.) Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press, 2013.
17. Jacobs, M.J.G. "Mediation in the Netherlands." In: Hopt & Steffek (eds.), op. cit., pp. 587–636.
18. Kakalik, J.S. et al. An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform Act. RAND Corporation, MR-803-ICJ, 1996.
19. Lee, J. "The Singapore Convention on Mediation: A Commentary." Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2019, pp. 592–620.
