Núm. 2 (2022)
Artículos

An Empirical Study on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes in Europe: The Mediation Service Providers Perspective

PDF (English) HTML (English)
  • Marco Giacalone,
  • Sajedeh Salehi
Marco Giacalone
Post-doctoral researcher at Private and Economic Law Department (PREC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Sajedeh Salehi
Doctoral candidate at Private and Economic Law Department (PREC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/802

Publicado 2022-07-29

Palabras clave

  • Mediation,
  • Online Mediation,
  • Civil and Commercial Disputes,
  • Mediation Service Providers,
  • EU

Cómo citar

Giacalone, M., & Salehi, S. (2022). An Empirical Study on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes in Europe: The Mediation Service Providers Perspective. Revista Ítalo-española De Derecho Procesal, (2), 11–54. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/802

Derechos de autor 2022 Marco Giacalone, Sajedeh Salehi

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.

Resumen

This empirical study seeks to explore the application of mediation and online mediation in civil and commercial disputes from the perspective of service providers in France, Italy, and Belgium. A qualitative approach was used in investigating the effectiveness of mediation, the challenges that mediators face, including online, and its future perspective through the lens of service providers. This study aims to be suitable for policymakers, jurists, researchers, and mediation service providers.

PDF (English) HTML (English)

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

  1. Abedi F, Zeleznikow J, and Bellucci E, ‘Universal standards for the concept of trust in online dispute resolution systems in e-commerce disputes’ (2019) 27 (3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 209.
  2. Abernethy S, ‘Building large-scale online dispute resolution & Trustmark systems’ (2003) Proceedings of the UNECE Forum on ODR.
  3. Ahmed M, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution During the Covid-19 Crisis and Beyond’ (2021) 32 King’s Law Journal 147.
  4. Battaglia OR and Di Paola B, ‘A Quantitative Method to Analyse an Open-Ended Questionnaire: A Case Study about the Boltzmann Factor’ (2015) 38 Il nuovo cimento C 1.
  5. Beal BL, ‘Online Mediation: Has Its Time Come’ (1999) 15 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 735.
  6. Birch E, ‘The Historical Background to the EU Directive on Mediation’ (2006) 72 (1) The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 57.
  7. Bogner A, Littig B, and Menz W, ‘Generating qualitative data with experts and elites’ in O Flick (ed) The sage handbook of qualitative data collection (SAGE Publications 2018).
  8. Borgman CL, ‘Toward a definition of user friendliness: A psychological perspective’ (1986) UCLA Journal 29.
  9. Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, ‘CEDR Asia Pacific Mediation Rules’ (2010): <http://www.cedr-asia-pacific.com/cedr/docslib/CEDR%20Asia%20Pacific%20Mediation%20Rules.pdf> accessed 20 June 2022.
  10. Cominelli L and Jacqmin A, ‘Civil and commercial mediation In Italy: Lights and Shadows’ (2020) 22 Revista de EMERJ: Escola da Magistratura do Estado do Rio De Janeiro 11.
  11. Cortés P, ‘Accredited online dispute resolution services: creating European legal standards for ensuring fair and effective processes’ (2008) 17 (3) Information & Communications Technology Law 221.
  12. Cortés P, Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Taylor & Francis 2010) 145.
  13. Cortés P, The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market (2017, Cambridge University Press).
  14. Cortés P, The New Regulatory Framework for Consumer Dispute Resolution (Oxford University Press 2016).
  15. Cortés P, ‘Using Technology and ADR Methods to Enhance Access to Justice’ (2018) 5 IJODR 103.
  16. De Luca A, ‘Mediation in Italy: Feature and Trends’ in Carlos Esplugues and Louis Marquis (eds), New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation: Global Comparative Perspectives (Springer International Publishing 2015).
  17. De Palo G, ‘A Ten-Year-Long ‘EU Mediation Paradox’: When an EU Directive Needs to Be More... Directive’ (European Parliament Briefing 2018).
  18. Deben L, ‘The New Belgian Mediation Rules of 2018, a Revolution for Commercial Dispute Settlement or a Measure in Vain?’ in K Byttebier and K Van der Borght (eds) Law and Sustainability. Economic and Financial Law & Policy – Shifting Insights & Values, (vol 6. Springer 2021).
  19. Del Duca LF, Rule C, and Cressman B, ‘Lessons and Best Practices for Designers of Fast Track, Low Value, High Volume Global E-Commerce ODR Systems’ (2015) 4 Penn St JL & Int’l Aff 242.
  20. Doeringer S, ‘The Problem-Centred Expert Interview, Combining Qualitative Interviewing Approaches for Investigating Implicit Expert Knowledge’ (2021) 24 (3) International Journal of Social Research Methodology 265.
  21. Ebner N, ‘E-Mediation’ in Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publication 2012).
  22. Eisen JB, ‘Are We Ready for Mediation in Cyberspace?’ [1998] Brigham Young University Law Review 1305.
  23. Esplugues C, ‘General Report: New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation – Global Comparative Perspectives’ in C Esplugues and L Marquis (eds), New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation: Global Comparative Perspectives (Springer International Publishing 2015)
  24. Esteban de la Rosa F, ‘Scrutinizing Access to Justice in Consumer ODR in Cross-Border Disputes: The Achilles’ Heel of the EU ODR Platform’ (2017) 4 IJODR 26.
  25. Feinberg KR, ‘Mediation - A Preferred Method of Dispute Resolution’ (1989) 16 (5) Pepp. L. Rev. 12.
  26. Filler EA, Commercial Mediation in Europe: An Empirical Study of the User Experience (Kluwer Law International BV 2012).
  27. Genn H, ‘What Is Civil Justice for? Reform, ADR, and Access to Justice’ (2012) 24 (1) Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 397.
  28. Giacalone M and Loui RP, ‘Dispute Resolution with Arguments over Milestones: Changing the Representation to Facilitate Changing the Focus’ (2018) Jusletter IT, IRIS 167.
  29. Giacalone M and Salehi S, ‘Online dispute resolution: the perspective of service providers’ in Francesco Romeo, Marco Dall’Aglio, and Marco Giacalone (eds), Algorithmic Conflict Resolution (Torino G. 2019).
  30. Gioia G, ‘L’uniforme regolamentazione della risoluzione alternativa delle controversie con i consumatori’ (2018) 1 Revista Ítalo-española De Derecho Procesal 501.
  31. Goldberg SB, Green ED, and Sander FE A, ‘ADR Problems and Prospects: Looking to the Future’ (1986) 69 Judicature 291.
  32. Hammond AM G, ‘How do you write “Yes”? A study on the effectiveness of online dispute resolution’ (2003) 20 (20) Conflict Resolution Quarterly 261-
  33. Harland N and Holey E, ‘Including Open-Ended Questions in Quantitative Questionnaires—Theory and Practice’ (2011) 18 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 482.
  34. Hodges C, ‘Unlocking Justice and Markets: The Promise of Consumer ADR’ in J Zekoll and others (eds), Formalisation and Flexibilisation in Dispute Resolution (Brill Nijhoff 2014).
  35. Hughes SH, ‘Facilitative Mediation or Evaluative Mediation: May Your Choice Be a Wise One’ (1998) 59 The Alabama Lawyer 246.
  36. Hyman MR and Sierra JJ, ‘Open- versus Close-Ended Survey Questions’ (2016) 14 NMSU Business Outlook.
  37. Indovina V, ‘When Mandatory Mediation Meets the Adversarial Legal Culture of Lawyers: An Empirical Study in Italy’ (2020) 26 Harv Negot L Rev 69.
  38. Jeretina U, ‘Consumer online dispute resolution (ODR)-a mechanism for innovative e-governance in EU’ (2018) 16 Cent. Eur. Pub. Admin. Rev. 45.
  39. Katsh E, ‘ODR: A Look at History A Few Thoughts About the Present and Some Speculation About the Future’ in MS Abdel Wahab, E Katsh and D Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publication 2012).
  40. Kistemaker L, ‘Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.Nl. Dutch Experiences with ODR for Divorce’ (2021) 59 Family Court Review 232.
  41. Linneberg SM and Korsgaard S, ‘Coding Qualitative Data: A Synthesis Guiding the Novice’ [2019] Qualitative Research Journal.
  42. Logvynenko M and Kordunian I, Registers oOf Mediators in Europe: Comparative and Legal Analysis’ (2021) 2 Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences 81.
  43. Mania K, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: The Future of Justice’ (2015) 1 International Comparative Jurisprudence 76.
  44. Matteucci G, ‘Mandatory Mediation, The Italian Experience’ (2015) 16 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 194.
  45. Matteucci G, ‘Mediation and Judiciary in Italy 2019’ (2020) 21 (1) Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 106; Giovanni Matteucci, ‘Mandatory Mediation, The Italian Experience’ (2015) 16 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 194.
  46. Menkel-Meadow C, ‘Mediation, Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)’ in JD Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed, Elsevier 2015).
  47. Mero-Jaffe I, ‘Is That What I Said? Interview Transcript Approval by Participants: An Aspect of Ethics in Qualitative Research’ (2011) 10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 231.
  48. Meuser M and Nagel U, ‘The Expert Interview and Changes in Knowledge Production’ in Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig and W Menz, Interviewing Experts (Palgrave Macmillan 2009).
  49. Nainodina I, ‘Court-annexed and Contractual Mediation in France’ (2015) 4 Russian Journal of Comparative Law 140.
  50. Pan Y and others, ‘Multilingual survey design and fielding: Research perspectives from the US Census Bureau’ (2014) Statistical Research Division Study Series (Survey Methodology 2014-01).
  51. Pappas BA, ‘Med-Arb and the Legalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (2015) 20 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 157.
  52. Pellegrinelli P, ‘The Management of a Mediation Organization According to the Italian Law’ (2012) 3 (4) Beijing Law Review 184.
  53. Poblet M and Ross G, ‘ODR in Europe’ in MS Abdel Wahab, E Katsh and D Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice (2nd ed, Eleven Intl. Publishing 2021).
  54. Rule C, Online Dispute Resolution For Business: B2B, ECommerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (John Wiley & Sons 2003).
  55. Sikri AK, ‘Mediation: Means of Achieving Real Justice in Consumer Disputes’ (2017) 5 IJCLP 1.
  56. Simion K, ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Rule of Law Research’ (Social Science Research Network 2016) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2817565.
  57. Steffek F and others, Regulating dispute resolution: ADR and access to justice at the crossroads (Bloomsbury Publishing 2014).
  58. Sternlight JR, ‘Is Alternative Dispute Resolution Consistent with the Rule of Law - Lessons from Abroad’ (2007) 56 DePaul L Rev 569.
  59. Taelman P and Voet S, ‘Mediation in Belgium: a Long and Winding Road’ in C Esplugues and L Marquis (eds), New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation: Global Comparative Perspectives (Springer International Publishing 2015).
  60. Tallon A, ‘De rechtstoegang en de bemiddeling’ in E Boydens and R De Baerdemaeker (eds) Justitie: Vraagstukken en perspectieven voor morgen (Antemis Limal 2013).
  61. The Law Reform Commission, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation: Report’ (November 2010) 17-18 <https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/reports/r98adr.pdf> accessed 20 June 2022.
  62. Timans R, Wouters P, and Heilbron J, ‘Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be’ (2019) 48 Theory and Society 193.
  63. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018 | United Nations Commission On International Trade Law’ <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/modellaw/commercial_conciliation> accessed 20 June 2022.
  64. Verougstraete I, ‘The Belgian law on mediation’ in Institut de Formation Judiciaire (ed). Family mediation and guidance in crossborder disputes within the EU: How to improve practices? (Institut de Formation Judiciaire 2012).
  65. Von Eckartsberg R, Life-World Experience: Existential-Phenomenological Research Approaches in Psychology (Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology 1986).
  66. Webley L, ‘Qualitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research’ in Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer (eds) Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Oxford University Press 2010).
  67. Wechs HA, ‘Optimising Mediation for Intellectual Property Law – Perspectives from EU, French and UK Law’ (2018) 49 (4) IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 384.
  68. Wengraf T, Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods (SAGE 2001)
  69. Yin RK, Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth ed, SAGE 2014).
  70. Zheng J, Online Resolution of E-Commerce Disputes: Perspectives from the European Union, the UK, and China (Springer Nature 2020).
  71. Zhong S and Yang Z, ‘K-Anonymous Data Collection’ (2009) 179 Information Sciences 2948.
  72. Züll C, ‘Open-Ended Questions. GESIS Survey Guidelines’ (2016) GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences 1.
  73. Zumeta Z, 2014. ‘Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation’ <https://www.mediate.com/articles/zumeta.cfm> accessed 20 June 2022.
  74. ‘Allstate Protection Plans’ <https://www.squaretrade.com/> accessed 20 June 2022.
  75. ‘EBay Services: Buying and Selling Tools: Dispute Resolution Overview’ <https://pages.ebay.com/services/buyandsell/disputeres.html> accessed 20 June 2022.
  76. ‘E-Pom’ <https://e-pom.eu/> accessed 20 June 2022.
  77. ‘Online Dispute Resolution | European Commission’ <https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2> accessed 20 June 2022.
  78. ‘Online Dispute Resolution, | European Commission’ <https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.complaints.screeningphase> accessed 20 June 2022.
  79. ‘YOUSTICE | ODR - Online Dispute Resolution’ <http://www.odreurope.com/meet-justice> accessed 20 June 2022.