Mediation in Russia: Prospects and Alternatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-746X-2024-49-1-90-97Keywords:
conflict, mediation, pre-action protocol, alternative dispute resolution procedure, judicial reconciliationAbstract
In modern realities, there is a tendency to increase the judicial workload, which entails a number of certain negative consequences. In turn, attempts made by competent entities to consolidate and popularize the institution of mediation in Russia did not meet the expectations, unlike in foreign countries where the use of this tool is quite effective. In this regard, determining the prospects for the development of procedures for pre-trial interaction between the parties in the domestic legal order is of significant scientific interest. The purpose of the study is to identify the reasons that impede the effective functioning of the institution of mediation in Russia and to find possible ways to overcome problems, taking into account the experience of foreign countries. In a comparative aspect, a brief analysis of the legislative regulation of the pre-trial procedure used in the UK is provided. Some other legal mechanisms are proposed that will stimulate the development of an alternative dispute resolution system in Russia. It is concluded that a consistent legislative policy that considers the judicial procedure as an exclusive form of conflict resolution will lead to the creation of conditions that encourage citizens to use alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Downloads
References
Жилин Г.А. 2010. Правосудие по гражданским делам: актуальные вопросы. М., Проспект, 576 с.
Моторина И.С. 2019. Судебная медиация как способ обеспечения доступа к правосудию будущего и повышения справедливости при регулировании споров. Российская юстиция, 11: 31–35.
Терехин В.А. 2020. Мировая юстиция в современной России: от идеи возрождения до конституционного статуса. Российская юстиция, 7: 2–5.
Устюжанинов В.А., Сапожников С.А. 2000. Компетенция мирового судьи по рассмотрению гражданских дел. Российская юстиция, 12: 11–12.
Филатова М.А. 2019. Сроки судебного разбирательства: от императива закона к активному судье? Вестник гражданского процесса, 5: 42–60. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-5-42-60
Фоков А.П. 2018. Мировой судья в России и за рубежом: проблемы и перспективы развития. Мировой судья, 1: 8–12.
Galanter M. 1986. The Day After the Litigation Explosion. The Maryland Law Review, 3: 3–39.
Johnston M.D. 2007. The Litigation Explosin, Proposed Reforms, and their Consequences. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 3: 179–207.
Miller A.R. 2003. The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the «Litigation Explosion», «Liability Crisis» and Efficiency Cliches Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments? New York University Law Review, 3: 982–1134.
Posner R.A. 1985. The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 384 p.
Ray L. 1985. The Multi-Door Courthouse Idea: Building the Courthouse of the Future... Today. Journal on Dispute Resolution, 1.1: 6–54.
Abstract views: 99
Share
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.