Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Civil Litigation in China and Europe pp 281–295Cite as

Mediation: A Desirable Case Management Tool for the Courts?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1021 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 31))

Abstract

Building on empirical data from various countries relating to court-referred mediation, and based on Dutch comparative research, this chapter invites a wider perspective for reflecting critically on what procedural law experts know – and do not know – about the popular ‘demand’ for public and private justice. Across jurisdictions, authorities appear increasingly inclined to prescribe mediation mandatorily, but all the more striking is the lack of any evidence-based framework for fundamentally assessing different conflict resolution strategies. Ingredients and pitfalls to reckon with in such a framework are discussed, including implications for judicial policy-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jagtenberg et al. 2011, pp. 7–65.

  2. 2.

    De Roo and Jagtenberg 2005, pp. 179–189.

  3. 3.

    Pruitt 1983, pp. 167–194.

  4. 4.

    Van Velthoven and Ter Voert 2004. A 2009 update of this survey is available at www.en.wodc.nl (last consulted in May 2013).

  5. 5.

    Genn 1999.

  6. 6.

    For empirical data on Dutch judges, see Van der Linden 2008.

  7. 7.

    Jagtenberg et al. 2011, p. 8.

  8. 8.

    As from 2007, all courts except the Supreme Court have a mediation bureau available, the services of which one is alerted to on every court’s website.

  9. 9.

    Galanter 2004.

  10. 10.

    De Roo and Jagtenberg 2005, p. 183.

  11. 11.

    Silvestri and Jagtenberg 2013, p. 33.

  12. 12.

    Compare Art. 5(2) and paras. 5 and 13 of the preamble, Mediation Directive 2008/52/EC.

  13. 13.

    ECJ 18 March 2010, Rosalba Alassini v. Telecom Italia SpA, C-317/08.

  14. 14.

    De Roo and Jagtenberg 2011.

  15. 15.

    Hodges et al. 2012.

  16. 16.

    De Roo and Jagtenberg 1994.

  17. 17.

    Jagtenberg and De Roo 2009, p. 53.

  18. 18.

    Landsman 2005.

  19. 19.

    Jagtenberg and De Roo 2012.

  20. 20.

    Jagtenberg et al. 2011 p. 18.

  21. 21.

    Blank et al. 2004.

  22. 22.

    Manning 1977 and Fiss 1984 represent the American spokesmen of these two opposite schools; I will resist the temptation to discuss how topical the teachings of Confucius are in respect of this subject.

  23. 23.

    The principal/agent dilemma, whereby agents will be incentivised to set their own agenda as their principal will self-censor their control, has been further developed by inter alia Eisenhardt 1989.

  24. 24.

    Under many mediator ethical codes, a mediator would have to resign if confronted during the negotiations with serious crimes, or at least blatant violations of mandatory law. Although bringing the defective products into circulation is definitely to be regarded as unethical, and from a contract law perspective possibly voidable, its inconsistency with the law is not obvious at the outset.

  25. 25.

    Makinwa 2012.

References

  • Blank J, Van der Ende M, Van Hulst B, Jagtenberg R (2004) Bench marking in an international perspective – an international comparison of the mechanisms and performance of the judiciary system. ECORYS Research, Rotterdam, No. 3

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (1994) Settling labour disputes in Europe. Kluwer Law & Taxation, Deventer/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (2005) ADR in the European Union: provisional assessment of comparative research in progress. In: Cadiet L, Clay T, Jeuland E (eds) Médiation et arbitrage – alternative à la justice ou justice alternative? Litec, Paris, pp 179–189

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (2011) Professional(s as) mediators: emerging markets and the quality of legal protection. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) The landscape of the legal professions in Europe and the USA: continuity and change. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp, pp 235–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14:57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss OM (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law J 93:1073–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M (2004) The vanishing trial: an examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. J Empir Leg Stud 1(3):459–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genn H (1999) Paths to justice – what people do and think about going to law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges C, Benohr I, Creutzfeldt-Banda N (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ (2009) Arbeid en Integrated Conflict Management Systems: Opbrengsten, Weerstanden en Intenties. TMD 13(3):43–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ (2012) Quo Vadis Mediation? In: Meijer GJ, Storm P, Timmerman V (eds) Piet Sanders, een Honderdjarige Vernieuwer. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 313–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ, Pel M, Combrink-Kuiters LC (2011) Customized conflict resolution – Court-connected mediation in the Netherlands, 1999–2009. The judiciary quarterly, special issue, SDU publishers, The Hague (The Netherlands) pp 7–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman S (2005) ADR and the cost of compulsion. Stanf Law Rev 57:1573–1630

    Google Scholar 

  • Makinwa A (2012) Private remedies for corruption – towards an international framework. Eleven Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning B (1977) Hyperlexis, our national disease. Northwest Univ Law Rev 71(6):767–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27:167–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri E, Jagtenberg RW (2013) Juggling a red hot potato: Italy, the EU, and mandatory mediation. Nederlands-Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Mediation en Conflictmanagement TMD 17(1):29–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden J (2008) Zitten, luisteren en schikken, Research memorandum no. 5. Raad voor de Rechtspraak, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Velthoven BCJ, Ter Voert M (2004) Geschilbeslechtingsdelta 2003. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Rob Jagtenberg

Authors
  1. Rob Jagtenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Jagtenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    C.H. (Remco) van Rhee

  2. Peking University Law School, Beijing, Hai Dian District, People's Republic of China

    Fu Yulin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jagtenberg, R. (2014). Mediation: A Desirable Case Management Tool for the Courts?. In: van Rhee, C., Yulin, F. (eds) Civil Litigation in China and Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7666-1_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation