Advertisement

General Report: New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation – Global Comparative Perspectives

  • Carlos EspluguesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 6)

Abstract

Modern societies are very much linked to the idea of litigation. The incessant increase in the level of litigation puts the whole judicial system under pressure because the volume of disputes brought before State courts increases, the proceedings become more and more lengthy and the costs incurred by the parties in such proceedings also greatly increase. This situation can impair the full implementation of the principle of access to justice for citizens.

In an attempt to tackle this phenomenon, support for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) tools has increased in recent decades in many parts of the world. Devices – like mediation – are said not to be any longer an “alternative” to litigation but are increasingly becoming integrated part of national schemes of justice. In fact, a new system of justice understood “in a broad sense” is being developed in many parts of the world.

Nowadays, mediation is said to occupy a very important position within this broad concept. It is firmly established in many legal systems and is growingly accepted in others. It is approached as a flexible and easily tailored way for parties to work out solutions to their disputes in many different fields, favoring the continuance of their relationships at the same time.

Mediation is growingly accepted in many places of the world and it is more and more present on the legal agenda of many States. But at the same time too many important differences exist worldwide not only in relation to the legal framework developed, its scope and solutions provided, but also regarding the commitment to the institution by national governments and its real use by citizens.

Keywords

European Union National Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure State Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ADR Centre. 2010. The cost of non ADR – surveying and showing the actual costs of intra-community commercial litigation. Rome. Available at: www.adrcenter.com/jamsinternational/civil-justice/Survey_Data_Report.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  2. Alexander, N. 2006. Global trends in mediation. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, N. 2009. International and comparative mediation legal perspectives. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, N. 2010. Four mediation stories from across the globe. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74: 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alfini, J.J., S.B. Press, J.R. Sternlight, et al. 2006. Mediation theory and practice, 2nd ed. Newark: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, N. 2012. The three paths of justice – courts proceedings, arbitration and mediation in England. Dordrecht: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrews, N. 2014. England and Wales. In Global perspectives on ADR, ed. C. Esplugues and S. Barona, 103. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, N., N. Trocker, and A. De Luca. 2011. The duty to consider mediation: Salvaging value from the European Mediation Directive. In La mediazione civile alla luce della direttiva 2008/52/CE, 13. Florenze: FUP.Google Scholar
  9. Argunov, A., V. Argunov, and A. Akhmetbekov. 2014. National report – Russia. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  10. Aylmer, W. 2012. Ireland. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 239. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  11. Babić, D. 2014a. National report – Croatia. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  12. Babić, D. 2014b. Croatia. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 81. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  13. Bach, I., and U.P. Gruber. 2012. Germany. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 159. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  14. Barona, S. 2012. La mediación: mecanismo para mejorar y complementar la vía jurisdiccional. Ventajas e inconvenientes tras la aprobación de la Ley 5/2012, de 6 de julio, de mediación en asuntos civiles y mercantiles. In Estudios sobre el Significado e Impacto de la Mediación: ¿Una Respuesta Innovadora en los Diferentes Ámbitos Jurídicos? ed. J.F. Etxeberría Guridi. Cizur Menor: UPV/Kutxa/Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.Google Scholar
  15. Barona, S. 2013. Mediación en asuntos civiles y mercantiles en España. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  16. Barona, S., and C. Esplugues. 2014. ADR mechanisms and their incorporation into global justice in the twenty-first century: Some concepts and trends. In Global perspectives on ADR, ed. C. Esplugues and S. Barona, 1. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  17. Basso, M., and F. Polido. 2014. National report – Brasil. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  18. Ben Hamida, W. 2014. National report – Lebanon. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  19. Bernt, C. 2014. National report – Norway. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  20. Boulle, L., M.T. Colatrella, and A.P. Picchioni. 2008. Mediation. Skills and techniques. Newark: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  21. Boumakani, R. 1999. Les médiateurs de la République en Afrique Noire francophone: Sénégal, Gabon et Burkina-Faso. Revue internationale de Droit Compare 2: 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Broodryk, Th. 2014. National report – South Africa. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  23. Bu, Y. 2014. China. In Global perspectives on ADR, ed. C. Esplugues and S. Barona, 79. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  24. Bühring-Uhle, Ch. 2006. Arbitration and mediation in international business. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Busch, D. 2010. How does culture affect conflict mediation? Disentangling concepts from theory and practice. In International and regional perspectives on cross-cultural mediation, ed. D. Busch, C.H. Mayer, and Ch.M. Boness, 15. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Camara, F., and A. Ciss. 2009. Arbitrage et médiation dans les cultures juridiques négro-africaines: entre la prédisposition à dénouer et la mission de trancher. Revue de l’Arbitrage 2: 285.Google Scholar
  27. Capelo, M.J. 2014. National report – Portugal. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  28. Cappelleti, M., and B. Garth. 1981. Access to justice and the welfare state: An introduction. In Access to justice and the welfare state, ed. M. Cappelleti, 1. Florence: EUI.Google Scholar
  29. Chin-A-Fat, B. 2014. National report – The Netherlands. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  30. Chovanková, C. 2014. Slovakia. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 385. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  31. Clarke, A. 2008. The future of civil mediation. Arbitration 74: 419.Google Scholar
  32. Coimisiún um Athchóiriú/Law Reform Commission. 2010. Report alternative dispute resolution: Mediation and conciliation (LRC 98–2010). Dublin: LRC.Google Scholar
  33. Conseil d’Etat. 2010. Développer la médiation dans le cadre de l’Union européenne. Étude adoptée par l’Assemblée générale du Conseil d’État le 29 juillet 2010, Direction de l’information légale et administrative. Paris. Available at: http://www.aihja.org/images/users/1/files/mediation.pdf?PHPSESSID=f83dg63dqj61vokoep4kk44fu1. Accessed 18 July 2014.
  34. Cousteaux, G., and S. Poillot-Peruzzetto. 2014. Country report – France. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  35. Cover, M., and E. Lecchi. 2008. Mediating competition law cases. Arbitration 74(2): 121.Google Scholar
  36. Crawford, E.W., and J.M. Carruthers. 2012. United Kingdom. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 515. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  37. Crawford, E.W., and J.M. Carruthers. 2014. United Kingdom. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 461. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  38. Cutolo, D., and M.A. Shalaby. 2010. Mandatory mediation and the right to court proceedings. Dispute Resolution International 4: 131.Google Scholar
  39. Davis, W., and H. Turku., J. Disp. Resol. 2011. Access to justice and alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Dispute Resolution 1: 47.Google Scholar
  40. De Luca, A. 2014. Country report – Italy. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  41. De Palo, G., L. D’Urso, M. Trevor, et al. 2014. ‘Rebooting’ the mediation directive: Assessing the limited impact of its implementation and proposing measures to increase the number of mediations in the EU. Brussels: DG for Internal Policies. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493042/IPOL-JURI_ET%282014%29493042_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  42. De Roo, A., and R. Jagtenberg. 2005. ADR in the European Union: Provisional assessment of comparative research in progress. In Cadiet, L. (Dir.), Th. Clay, E. Jeuland. Médiation et arbitrage. Alternative dispute resolution. Alternative à la justice ou justice alternative? Perspectives comparatives, LexisNexis, Litec, Paris, 179.Google Scholar
  43. Deckert, K. 2013. Mediation in France: Legal framework and practical experiences. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 455. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  44. Diamantopoulos, G., and V. Koumpli. 2014. Country report – Greece. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  45. Ellger, R. 2013. Mediation in Ireland: Growing importance of ADR driven by budgetary restraints and docket congestion – a cheap and easy way out? In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 629. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  46. Emilianides, A.C., and N. Charalampidou. 2014. Cyprus. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 103. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  47. Emilianides, A.C., and X. Xenofontos. 2012. Cyprus. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 87. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  48. Ervo, L., and L. Sippel. 2012. Scandinavian countries. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 371. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  49. Esplugues, C. 2011. A new general regime for mediation in Spain: The Royal-Decree-Law 5/2012 of March 5th, 2012, Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International. Jahrbuch des Internationalen Zivilprozessrechts 16: 95.Google Scholar
  50. Esplugues, C. 2013a. Access to justice or access to states courts’ justice in Europe? The directive 2008/52/EC on civil and commercial mediation, Revista de Processo 221 (July), 303.Google Scholar
  51. Esplugues, C. 2013b. El régimen jurídico de la mediación civil y mercantil en conflictos trasfronterizos en España tras la Ley 5/2012, de 6 de julio. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado XLVI(136): 166.Google Scholar
  52. Esplugues, C. 2014. Civil and commercial mediation in the EU after the transposition of directive 2008/52/EC. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 485. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  53. European Commission. 2012. Business-to-business alternative dispute resolution in the EU (Flash Eurobarometer 347). Brussels, March-April 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_347_en.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2014.
  54. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2010. European judicial systems. Edition 2010 (data 2008): Efficiency and quality of justice. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1694098&SecMode=1&DocId=1653000&Usage=2. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  55. Falk, G., and G. Koren. 2005. Zivilrechts-Mediations-Gesetz, Kommentar zum ZivMediatG. Wien: Verlag Österreich.Google Scholar
  56. Frauenberger-Pfeiler, U. 2012. Austria. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 1. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  57. Frauenberger-Pfeiler, U. 2014. Austria. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 1. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  58. Fricero, N. 2011. Le décret du 1er octobre 2010: une justice conciliatoire modernisée, Droit et procédures, Janvier, 1.Google Scholar
  59. Fursa, S.Y. 2014. Country report – Ukraine. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  60. Galanter, M. 1981. Justice in many rooms. In Access to justice and the welfare state, ed. M. Cappelleti, 147. Florence: EUI.Google Scholar
  61. Georgiev, E., and Ch. Jessel-Holst. 2013. Mediation in Bulgaria: Legal regime, EU harmonisation and practical experience. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 333. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  62. Gonzalez Martin, N. 2014. Country report – Mexico. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  63. Gruber, U.P., and I. Bach. 2014. Germany. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 155. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  64. Grzybczyk, K., and G. Fraczek. 2012. Poland. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 299. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  65. Guillemard, S. 2014. Country report – Québec. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  66. Guinchard, E. 2014. France. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 139. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  67. Guinchard, E., and M. Boucaron-Nardetto. 2012. France. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 131. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  68. Harsági, V., C. Gergely, and N. Zoltán. 2014. Hungary. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 201. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  69. Hopt, K.J. 2010. Mediation. Eine Einführung. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74: 723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hopt, K.J., and F. Steffek. 2013. Mediation: Comparison of laws, regulatory models, fundamental issues. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 3. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  71. Iglesias, J.L., C. Esplugues, G. Palao, et al. 2012. Spain. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 445. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  72. Iglesias, J.L., G. Palao, R. Espinosa, et al. 2014. Spain. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 419. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  73. Jankowski, J., S. Cieślak, and M. Muliński. 2014. Country report – Poland. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  74. Jessel-Holst, Ch. 2013. Mediation in Hungary: Legal foundations, recent reforms, EU convergence. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 605. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  75. Jovin Hrastnik, B. 2011. The Slovenian legislation implementing the EU mediation directive. Brussels: Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Legal Affairs.Google Scholar
  76. Kakiuchi, S. 2014. Country report – Japan. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  77. Karagussov, F. 2014. Country report – Kazakhstan. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  78. Kengyel, M., V. Harsági, and Z. Nemessányi. 2012. Hungary. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 217. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  79. Klamaris, N.K., and C.G. Chronopoulou. 2013. Mediation in Greece: A contemporary procedural approach to resolving disputes. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 585 Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  80. Knez, R., and P. Weingerl. 2014a. Country report – Slovenia. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  81. Knez, R., and P. Weingerl. 2014b. Slovenia. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 397. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  82. Kourtis, V. 2014. Greece. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 181. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  83. Kourtis, V., and E. Sivena. 2012. Greece. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 193. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  84. Kulms, R. 2013. Privatising civil justice and the day in court. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  85. Leon, Ch., and I. Rohracher. 2012. Austria. In EU mediation law and practice, ed. G. De Palo and M.B. Trevor, 11. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  86. Lopes, D. 2014. Portugal. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 305. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  87. Mattei, U. 2007. Access to justice. A renewed global issue? In General reports to the XVIIth congress of the international academy of comparative law, ed. K. Boele-Woelki and S. Van Erp, 385. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  88. Mattl, Ch., A. Prokop-Zischka, and S. Ferz. 2006. Mediation in Austria. In Global trends in mediation, ed. N. Alexander, 65. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  89. Menétrey, S. 2014a. Country report – Luxembourg. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  90. Menétrey, S. 2014b. Luxembourg. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 253. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  91. Milu, R.G., and R.G. Taus. 2012. Romania. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 351. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  92. Milu, R.G., and R.G. Taus. 2014. Romania. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 343. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  93. Morek, R., and L. Rozdeiczer. 2013. Mediation in Poland: Time for a quiet revolution? In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 775. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  94. Natov, N., B. Musseva, V. Pandov, T. Tsenova, and S. Yordansky. 2012. Bulgaria. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 69. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  95. Natov, N., B. Musseva, and V. Pandov. 2014. Bulgaria. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Cross-border mediation, II, ed. C. Esplugues, 253. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  96. Nekrošius, V., and V. Vėbraitė. 2012. Baltic countries. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 29. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  97. Nekrošius, V., and V. Vėbraitė. 2014. Baltic countries. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 29. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  98. Ngwanza, A. 2014. La mediation dans l’espace CEMAC. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  99. Nolan-Haley, J.M. 2012. Is Europe headed down the primrose path with mandatory mediation? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 37: 981.Google Scholar
  100. Patrão, A. 2012. Portugal. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 327. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  101. Pauknerová, M., J. Brodec, and M. Pfeiffer. 2012. Czech Republic. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 97. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  102. Pauknerová, M., J. Brodec, and M. Pfeiffer. 2014. Czech Republic. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 125. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  103. Pelzer, N. 2014. Country report – Germany. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  104. Pruckner, M. 2003. Recht der Mediation. Wien: Linde Verlag.Google Scholar
  105. Queirolo, I., and Ch. Gambino. 2014. Italy. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 221. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  106. Queirolo, I., L. Carpaneto, and S. Dominelli. 2012. Italy. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 251. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  107. Rajaonera, L., and R. Jakoba. 2014. Country report – Madagascar. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  108. Relis, T. 2009. Perceptions in litigation and mediation. Cambridge: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs, and Gendered Parties, CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Risak, M. 2014. Country report – Austria. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  110. Risse, J. 2003. Wirtschaftsmediation. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  111. Roth, M., and D. Gherdane. 2013. Mediation in Austria: The European pioneer in mediation law and practice. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  112. Samb, M. 2014. Country report – Senegal. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  113. Sanco, D.G. 2009. Study on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the European Union. Final report submitted by civic consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) Framework Contract Lot 2 – DG Sanco. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/redress_cons/adr_study.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  114. Sander, F.E.A. 1979. Varieties of dispute processing. In The pound conference: Perspectives on justice in the future (proceedings of the national conference on the causes of the popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice), ed. A.R. Levin and R.R. Wheeler, 65. St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
  115. Şandru, M., and D. Cälin. 2014. Country report – Romania. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  116. Scherpe, J.M., and B. Marten. 2013. Mediation in England and Wales: Regulation and practice. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 365. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  117. Schmidt, J.P. 2013. Mediation in Portugal: Growing up in a sheltered home. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 809. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  118. Schmiedel, L. 2013. Mediation in The Netherlands: Between state promotion and private promotion. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 697. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  119. Sciberras Camilleri, T. 2012. Malta. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 283. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  120. Shen, K.L. 2014. Country report – Taiwan. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  121. Silva Antares Pires, C.da. 2014. National report – Macau. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  122. Sipel, L. 2014. Scandinavian countries. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 359. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  123. Steffek, F. 2010. Rechtsvergleichende Erfahrungen für die Regelung der Mediation. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74: 841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sussman, E. 2009. Final Step: Issues in enforcing the mediation settlement agreement. In Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation, The Fordham papers 2008, ed. A.W. Rovine. Leiden: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  125. Taelman, P., and S. Voet. 2014. National report – Belgium. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  126. The Gill Report. 2009a. Report of the Scottish civil courts review, Vol. I, Chapters 1–9. Available at: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/aboutscs/vol1chap1_9.pdf?sfvrsn=10. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  127. The Gill Report. 2009b. Report of the Scottish civil courts review, Vol. II, Chapters 10–15. Available at: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/aboutscs/vol2chap10_15.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  128. The Right Honourable the Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls. 1996. Access to justice final report. Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/index.htm. Accessed 17 July 2014.
  129. Tilman, V. 2011. Lessons learnt from the implementation of the EU mediation directive: The business perspective, directorate general for internal policies. Brussels: Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Legal Affairs. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201105/20110518ATT19584/20110518ATT19584EN.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  130. Tochtermann, P. 2013. Mediation in Germany: The mediation act – alternative dispute resolution at the crossroads. In Mediation principles and regulation in comparative perspective, ed. K.J. Hopt and F. Steffek, 521. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  131. Traest, M. 2012. Belgium. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 45. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  132. Traest, M. 2014. Belgium. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 39. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  133. Trocker, N., and A. De Luca. 2011. Presentazione. In La mediazione civile alla luce della direttiva 2008/52/CE, ed. N. Trocker and A. De Luca. Florenze: FUP.Google Scholar
  134. Van Hoek, A., and J. Kocken. 2012. The Netherlands. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, national mediation rules and procedures, I, ed. C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, and G. Palao, 491. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  135. Van Leynseele, P., and F. Van De Putte. 2005. La médiation dans le Code judiciaire. Journal des Tribunaux 6179:297.Google Scholar
  136. Vodounon-Djegni, R. 2014. Country report – Benin. Report presented at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, 20–26 July 2014. Vienna: International Academy of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  137. Wagner, G. 2012. Harmonization of civil procedure – policy perspective. In Civil litigation in a globalising world, ed. X.W. Kramer and C.H. Van Rhee, 93. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Yu, H.L. 2009. Is court-annexed mediation desirable? Civil Justice Quarterly 28: 515.Google Scholar
  139. Zachariasiewicz, M. 2014. Poland. In Civil and commercial mediation in Europe, II cross-border mediation, ed. C. Esplugues, 273. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International LawUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations